Belcher and Others, Assignees of Chapman, a Bankrupt, against Campbell and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 July 1845 |
| Date | 09 July 1845 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 115 E.R. 773
IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH.
S. C. 15 L. J. Q. B. 11; 9 Jur. 1073.
QUEEN'S BENCH REPORTS. By JOHN LEY-CESTER ADOLPHUS, of the Inner Temple, Esq., and THOMAS FLOWER ELLIS, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barristers at Law. New Series. Vol. VIII. Containing the CASES DETERMINED in Trinity Vacation, Michaelmas Term and Vacation, Hilary Term and Vacation, Easter Term and Vacation, IX. VICTORIA. [1] cases argued and determined in the queen's bench, in trinity vacation, IX. victoria. (trinity vacation continued from vol. VII.) belcher and others, Assignees of Chapman, a Bankrupt, against CAMPBELL and another, Wednesday, July 9th, 1845, C. being indebted to defendants in a sum not yet payable, and pressed by them for security, handed to them a note by which C.'s debtor, S., promised to pay C. a sum exceeding C.'s debt to defendants. This note was not payable to order; but C. indorsed it when he handed it over. Afterwards defendants pressed C. to obtain negotiable paper from S. instead of the note, which they re-delivered to C. for that purpose; S. thereupon, after the term for C.'s paying defendants had elapsed, took back the note, and accepted bills of exchange drawn by C., exceeding C.'s debt to defendants, which bills C. desired him to give to the defendants. At the time of the acceptance, C. intended to commit an act of bankruptcy, which S. knew; but defendant did not know it. After the act of bankruptcy, S. delivered the bills to defendants. In trover by C.'s assignees for the bills, issue being joined on a plea of not possessed. Held, that, though S. was not agent for defendants, the bills were not, at the time of the act of bankruptcy, in C.'s possession as reputed owner with the consent of the true owners, within stat. 6 G. 4, c. 16, a. 72, merely as being in C.'s hands ; inasmuch as they were subject to the same rights as the note, which C. held only, for a specific purpose, as agent for defendants. But that, nevertheless, if S, did not know of the assignment by C. to defendants of the debt due from S. to C., the assignment was not good as against the plaintiffs; and therefore, as against them, the defendants had no title, legal or equitable, to the note, even while it remained in their hands, and consequently, none to the bills. But that, if S. did know, defendants were entitled to succeed on the issue. [S. C. 15 L. J. Q. B. 11; 9 Jur. 1073.] Trover, by the plaintiffs as assignees of the estate and effects of George Chapman, a bankrupt, against the defendants, who were attorneys carrying on business [2] in partnership, to recover the value of six bills of exchange, mentioned in the declaration, all bearing date on the 19th July 1842, and drawn, on that day, by the bankrupt, upon, and accepted by, one William Frost Sweetland, payable to the bankrupt or his order, at 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, and 72 months after date, respectively. The bills, except the last, were for 1601. each; the last waa for 1701. 77;) 774 BELCHER V. CAMPBELL 8 Q. B. 3. The defendants pleaded not guilty, and a denial that the plaintiffs were entitled to the bills; upon which pleas the plaintiffs joined issue : and the cause was tried at the sittings (in Middlesex) after Michaelmas term, 1843, before the Lord Chief Justice; when, by direction of his Lordship, a verdict was found for the plaintiffs, damages 9701., subject to be reduced to 40s. on the bills being given up, or the amounts received paid, and with leave for the defendants to move to enter a nonsuit. A motion for that purpose was accordingly made in Hilary term 1844, when the Court recommended that the facts should be turned into a special case, which was stated as follows. In the spring of 1842 the bankrupt was a client of the defendants; and they advanced him a sura of 4001., on the security of his warrant of attorney to confess judgment in case of nonpayment on 16th July in the same year ; on which day, and not before, the said warrant of attorney was capable of being enforced. About a fortnight before 19th July, the bankrupt was applied to by the defendants for further security. In answer to that application, he offered them a promissory note, which he then held, and which he had obtained...
To continue reading
Request your trial