Allsopp and Others v Day and Another

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date11 November 1861
Date11 November 1861
CourtExchequer

English Reports Citation: 158 E.R. 552

IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER

Allsopp and Others
and
Day and Another

S. C. 31 L. J. Ex. 105; 8 Jur. (N. S.) 41, 10 W. R 135, 5 L T. 320 Followed, Byerley v. Prerost, 1871, L R. 6 C. P. 146. Questioned, In re Walden, Ex parte Odell, 1878, 10 Ch. D. 90. Distinguished, In re Baum, Ex parte Cooper, 1878, 10 Ch. D. 321. Approved, Marsden v. Meadows, 1881, 7 Q B. D 83 Referred to, North Central Wagon Company v Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway, 1887, 35 Ch. D. 209.

allsopp and others 0 day and another. Nov. 11, 1861.-The trustees, under the settlement of a married woman, purchased of her husband his household furniture, when he gave them the following receipt " Received of J. D and C. J., the trustees under the deed of settlement for the benefit of my wife, the sum of 931. 6s. 6d for the purchase of my household goods and effects mentioned in the inclosed inventory and valuation as purchased this day by J. D and C. J., as trustees named in the deed of settlement, and empowered to purchase by such deed." Held, that the document was not a bill of sale within the 17 & 18 Viet. c. 36.-Semble, that a bill of sale within that Act must be an instrument by which the property in personal chattels is transferred by one person to another. [S. C. 31 L. J. Ex. 105; 8 Jur. (N. S.) 41, 10 W. E 135, 5 L T. 3:20 Followed, Byerley v. Prevobt, 1871, L E. 6 C. P 146. Questioned,/?! ie Walden, Ex parte Odell, 1818, 10 Ch. D. 90. Distinguished, In re Baum, Et patte Coqier, 1878, 10 Ch. D. 321. Approved, Marsden v. Meadow*, 1881, 7 Q B. D 83 Pieferred to, North Central Wagtm Company v Manchester, Sheffield and Lincoln^/ure Railwai/, 1887, 35 Ch. D. 209.] This was a proceeding under the Interpleader Act, arid by consent of the parties and order of a Judge the following cage was stated for the opinion of this Court under the 15th section of the Common Law Procedure Act, 18GO. The plaintiffs are the execution creditors under a writ of fi. fa. directed to the sheriff of Staffordshrre, issued on a judgment recovered by them in an action against George French The defendants are trustees under a deed, bearing date the 8th day of November, 1858, made and executed between the said Geoige French and Louisa Maria his wife, of the one part, and John Day and Charles Jones, the now defendants, of the other part. [458] The sheriff of Staffordshire, under and by virtue of the said writ of fi. fa., on the 14th day of April, 1861, seized and took in execution certain goods, which the now defendants claim as their property as against the now plamtins, the execution creditor's. By the said deed, after reciting that the said Louisa Maria, as one of the children of John Watkins, deceased, was, under the will of Benjamin Hudson, deceased, bearing date the 2nd August, 1805, entitled to certain interests and shares in certain Bank 31 per cent, annuities and Eeduced 31. per cent annuities, standing in the name of the Accountant General of the Court of Chancery to the credit of a certain cause 11 Hudson v. Muusley," and in ceitam cash, and that, by a petition presented to the Master of the Eolls in the said cause by the several persons interested therein, it was prayed that such stock and cash might be transferred and paid to the seveial persons...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Somers v James Allen (Ireland) Ltd
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 22 March 1985
    ...CREDIT ACT 1947 S21–36 AGRICULTURAL CREDIT ACT 1947 S35 AGRICULTURAL CREDIT ACT 1978 S23 AGRICULTURAL CREDIT ACT 1978 S36 ALLSOP V DAY 7 H&N 457 ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIE VAASSEN BV V ROMALPA ALUMINIUM LTD 1976 2 AER 552, 1976 1 WLR 676 BILLS OF SALE (IRL) ACT 1879 S3 BILLS OF SALE (IRL) ACTS 187......
  • Gough v Everard
    • United Kingdom
    • Exchequer
    • 29 April 1863
    ...bills of sale, and although the interpretation clause gives this word a more extended signification, the case of Allsop v. Day (7 H. & N. 457) shews that the clause will be construed with strictness, and that a document is not within it merely because it contains the terms of a contract of ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT