Beckham v Knight
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 November 1837 |
| Date | 16 November 1837 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 132 E.R. 717
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
beckham v. knight. Nov. 16, 1837. After joinder in demurrer Plaintiff became bankrupt, and obtained his certificate. Defendant then applied for security for costs, but Plaintiff's assignees not interfering, the Court rejected the application. The Plaintiff declared on the breach of an agreement attended, as he alleged, with great loss. The Defendant demurred to the declaration, and the parties joined in demurrer, last April. In June the Plaintiff became a bankrupt, and obtained his certificate before the present term. His assignees declined to interfere with the present action. Early in the term E. V. Williams obtained a rule, calling on the Plaintiff to give security for costs. [75] Stammers now shewed cause. The assignees having declined to interfere, there is no ground for this application. In Wilkinshmo v. Marshall (4 Tyrwh. 993), it was held that where a plaintiff became bankrupt before the trial of a cause the defendant could not apply for security for costs till he had ascertained that the assignees had resolved to proceed with the action. And this case resembles that of M'Cullock v. Robinson (2 N. E. 352), where a commission of bankruptcy was issued against the plaintiff, upon the petition of the defendant, who was the only creditor, and had chosen himself sole assignee, and the plaintiff having brought an action against the defendant to try the commission, the Court refused to stay the proceedings till he should give security for costs. In Townsendv. Snow (1 Marsh. 477. 6 Taunt. 123), the Court would neither set aside the proceedings, nor require an insolvent to give security for costs in an action where his assignees had refused to sue : and in Morgan v. Evans (7 B. Moore, 344) they refused to require the plaintiff to give security for costs, although it was sworn that he was insolvent, and that the action was brought in his name for the benefit of another who was alone beneficially interested in the 718 EABL OF HARRINGTON V. BISHOP OF LITCHFIELD 4 BING. (N. C.) 76. result. In Hartley v. Mayne (3 Mann. & By. 381), where the defendant obtained security for costs, the action was continued by the plaintiff's assignees. E. V. Williams in support of the rule. The Defendant might have pleaded the bankruptcy in bar of the action: Kinnear v. Tarrant (15 East, 622), Biggs v. Cox (4 B. & C. 920). But the effect of that would be to drive the assignees to a new action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daniel Beckham, - Plaintiff in Error; William Walker Drake and John Surgey, - Defendants in Error
...was obtained. After argument by Mr. Stammers for the plaintiff, and by Mr. E. V. Williams for the defendant, the rule was discharged (4 Bing. N. C. 74). In giving judgment Lord C. J. Tindal said, " The plaintiff commences an action when he is a solvent person : he afterwards becomes bankrup......