Allen, Assignee of Prior, a Bankrupt, v Impett and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 April 1818 |
| Date | 29 April 1818 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 129 E.R. 384
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
S. C. 2 Moore, 240: at Nisi Prius, Holt, N. P. 641. Questioned, Bartlett v. Dimond, 1845, 14 Mee. & W. 86. Referred to, Edwards v. Lowndes, 1852, 1 El. & Bl. 89
[263] allen, Assignee of Prior, a Bankrupt, v. impett and another. April 29, 1818. [S. C. 2 Moore, 240: at Nisi Prius, Holt, N. P. 641. Questioned, Barlktt v. Dimmtd, 1845, 14 Mee. & W. 86. Referred to, Edwards v. Lowndes, 1852, 1 El. & Bl. 89.] The trustee* under a marriage settlement of stock, the dividends of which they covenanted to permit the bankrupt to receive for his life, executed, after his bankruptcy, a power of attorney to A. to receive the same. A. received the dividends, and paid them over to the wife of the bankrupt, save one sum, which he paid to one of the trustees : Held, that the assignees might recover the amount of such dividends from the trustees, in an action for money had and received. Assumpsit for money had and received. At the trial, before Dallas J., at the London sittings after the last terra, it appeared, that the Defendants were trustees of the marriage settlement of the bankrupt, and that certain stock thereby settled was held by them, upon trust, to pay the dividends to the bankrupt during his life ; that he had been permitted by the defendants to receive these dividends, until the issuing of the commission against him, which happened in December, 1815; that in August, 1816, the Defendants executed a power of attorney to a third party to receive the dividends, who, accordingly, received two half-years' dividends, due in April and October, 1816, and paid them over to the wife of the bankrupt, and also received another half-year's dividend, due in April, 1817, which he paid over to one of the Defendants. The present action was brought to recover the total amount of these dividends. Dallas J. being of opinion that the Defendants were liable in equity only, and that the action was not maintainable, directed a nonsuit. Copley Serjt. had obtained a rule nisi in the last term, to set aside the nonsuit, and enter a verdict for the Plaintiff' for the whole sum sought to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Creggy v Barnett
...approbation to his use and the liability thence arising. There are many cases that are founded upon this principle, from ( Allen v. Impett 8 Taunt. 263), to ( Roper v. Holland 3 A. & E. 99); and these have reference to earlier decisions." 24 A claim against a trustee for breach of trust not......
-
Robert James Edwards against Joseph Lowndes
...approbation to his use and the liability thence arising. There are many cases that are founded upon this principle, from Allen v. Impett (8 Taunt. 263), to Roper v. Holland (3 A. & E. 99); and these have reference to earlier decisions. In the present case, the Board of Health were trustees ......
-
Fitzgerald v Rowan
...8 Bing. 394. Courtown v. Goff 3 Ir. Jur. 182. Lawson v. Hinds 1 H. & B. 599. Edwards v. Lowndes 1 Ell. & Bl. 81. Allen v. ImpettENR 8 Taunt 263. Roper v. HollandENR 3 Ad. & El. 99. Moore v. GarwoodENR 4 Exch. 68. Dawson v. Wrench 18 L. J., N. S., Exch., 229. Andrews v. Ellison 6 B. M. 199. ......
-
Bartlett v Mary Dimond, Executrix of Charles Palmer Dimond, Deceased
...this Court in the case of 388 WATSON t . BODELL 14 M. & W. 57. Pardoe v. Price (13 M. & W. 282), was decided. The case of A Urn v. Impett (8 Taunt. 263) seems at least questionable. There is no evidence, however, of any such statement of account. If the account rendered by tie executor had ......