Abell and Others, Assignees of Daniell, a Bankrupt, v Daniell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 July 1829 |
| Date | 27 July 1829 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 173 E.R. 1192
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Guildhall, July 27, 1829. abell and others, assignees of daniell, a bankrupt, v daniell (Where a bankrupt in the habit of supplying his son with money to pay his bills, gave him £200 for that purpose just before he stopped payment, being at the time insolvent, but not expecting to become bankrupt Held, that the question for the jury in an action by his assignees against the sou to recover that money is, whether it was given in the ordinary course of maintaining the son, or as a fraudulent preference of the son over the creditors, made in contemplation of insolvency. Such gift of money is not within the 6 Geo. IV. c. 16, s. 73.) Aasumpsit for money had and received. The defendant, who was the son of the bankrupt, was between twenty-one and twenty-two years of age, not in business, and entirely maintained by his father, who uaed from time to time to give him sums of money for the purpose of discharging his bills. Before the time of the bankruptcy he had made repeated applications to his [3^1] father lor money for this purpose, but had not obtained any till November 10, 1825, when his father, who had on that day sold some East India stock, which was all his immediately disposable property, gave him £200, part of the proceeds of the sale. The bankrupt had failed to meet some bills which became due on the 7th , on the 10th he stopped payment; and on the 12th he proposed a composition of small amount (4s. in the pound) to his creditors. At the time of the stoppage he knew of his insolvency, but hoped to be able to make a composition with his creditors, and to continue his business . at that time he did not expect to become bankrupt A commission of bankruptcy was issued against him in December 1825, under which the 1ft ft M.S72, ADAMS V. SANDERS 1193 plaintifis were chosen assignees ; and they Drought this action to recover the £200 paid to the defendant under the circumstances above stated. The Attorney-General, in addressing the jury for the defendant, contended that the action could not be maintained There is no clause m the Bankrupt Act which avoids such a gift . the 6 Geo. IV. c. 16, s 73, is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Taylor v White
-
Re William Ryan, a Bankrupt v Bankrupt
...In re WILLIAM RYAN, a Bankrupt. and Abell v. DaniellENR 1 M. & M. 370. Skey v. CarterENRUNK 11 M. & W. 571; S. C. 7 Jur. 427. Whitmore v. RobertsonENRUNK 8 M. & W. 463; S. C. 5 Jur. 1088. In re PerrinUNK 4 Ir. Eq. Rep. 89, 362; S. C. 2 Dr. & War. 166. Atkinson v. Brindall 2 Scott, 369. Morg......