Between Charles Wall and Others, Assignees of Bond and Others, Bankrupts, Appellants: and Attorney General, Respondent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 March 1823 |
| Date | 08 March 1823 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 147 E.R. 591
IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
S. C 7 Cl. & F. 81, n.
Appeal from an Ordder of the Court of Exchequer.
HPEICE,3, WALL 7'. THE ATTORNTCY-GENERAL [643] [!n the housk ot- lords.] CftAKLES wall AND others, [Assignees of Bond and Others, (Bankrupts)], /tppelhmts; and the attohney-geneiul, H.espimihnf. March 4th and 8th, 1833,-Jurisdiction (appellate) of the House of Lords.-An order made by the Court of Exchequer, consequent upon a judgment of the Barons, in the matter of an extent upon facts reported by the Deputy Remembrancer to the Court, on a reference to him, is_not the subject-matter of an appeal to the House of Lords ; because (semble) it is a proceeding at law and not in equity, and the House has no appellate jurisdiction in such eases, as they have in many of those substantive independent decretal orders which are from time to time pronounced by courts of equity.-The proceeding by writ of extent, and all proceedings thereon, interlocutory and final, (semble) are proceedings at law.-The 23 (}eo. .'), eh. 35, does not make the order of the Court to sell the real property of a Crown debtor an equitable proceeding, so as to subject it to the immediate appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords.-To found an appeal to the House of Lords, the party failing must put his defence upon the record so as to obtain the judgment of the Court at Law, upon which he may bring a writ of error, and he may then appeal from the judgment of the Court of Error to the House of Lords: or he should file an English bill (or bill in equity in the Exchequer) to establish his right against the crown, when, if he do not obtain a decree in his favour, he may at once present a petition of appeal from the Court of F/quity to the House.-Kemble, that a party entitled to proceed by motion made to a Court of Equity under the various statutes authorizing such summary applications, is not thereby precluded from filing a bill in equity to obtain the same object, if with a view to saving his right of appeal, or for other reasons, it should bo considered the more adviseable course.-(juiere, Whether, when a debt, originally on simple contract, recovered by crown process, and brought into Court as part of the general fund which was the produce of sale of the lands of the crown-debtor, sold on motion under the 25th Geo. .1, oh. ;55, can be considered to be proper money of the crown, and to have been legally or equitably appropriated to the crown on and from the confirmation of the Master's report, finding the crown intitlecl to a certain pro portion of the fund from that time, in consideration of the debt due, and whether the crown is entitled to the accumulation of the dividends, &c. on the amount from the same time ? S ;e Observations on this Case, and reference to authorities, at the conclusion. [S. C. 7 Cl. & I \ S1, n.] [Appeal from an Order of the Court of Exchequer.] This was an appeal against certain parts of an order (vide ante, vol. ii. p. 67) made by the Court of Exchequer on the 2M day of December, 1815, in the ten several [644] causes mentioned in the note below (a), out of certain writs of extent issued against the estates [645] and effects of Walter Boyd the elder, Paul Betifield, Walter Boyd the younger, and James Urummond, who had become bankrupts. gating arid compounding charges of this description, forms the subject of an entire chapter-the 1 ;ith of Book L-of that Work. (a) The following were the true titles of the various causes in which the several orders of the Court were, from time to time, expressly made :- " Between our Sovereign Lord the King and William Mainwaring, Thomas Reid, and Getjrge Ward, assignees of Walter Boyd the elder, Paid Benfield, and James Drummond, claiming the property of certain lands, tenements, and hereditaments, seized into his Majesty's hands on two writs of extent, issued at the instance of the Treasury and Admiralty, against the said Walter Boyd the elder, Paul Benfield, Walter Boyd the younger, and James Drummond, directed to the sheriff of the county of Dorset, Defendants." " Between our Sovereign Lord the King and Abraham Robarts, claiming the property of the lands, tenements, and hereditaments seized into his Majesty's hands on the writs of extent above-mentioned, Defendant." " Between our Sovereign Lord the King and Walter Boyd the elder, Paul Ben 5fJp WALL V. THI ; ATTORNKY-GENERAL 11PRICE.H6. The order itself was the ultimate result of the following facts and previous proceedings. Oti the 7th of February, 1798, the parties [646] against whom the extents had issued were indebted to the Crown in the sum of 50,0001. for money advanced to them for the supply of the Navy, which sum was secured by the joint and several bond of the Bankrupts, dated on that day. On the 12th day of March, 1799, the Bankrupts became further indebted to his Majesty in the sum of 100,0001., being so much of his Majesty's money paid to them by the style and h'rm of Boyd, Bentield and Company, by a draft by the Commissioners of the Treasury, and dated the 9th of .Tune, 1798, in pursuance of the King's warrant, dated 4th December, 1797, and furnished for the supply of his Majesty's forces, serving at the Capo of Good Hope, no part thereof having been applied by the said Boyd, Ben field and Company, for the supply of his Majesty's forces, or otherwise for his Majesty's use. A commission was therefore issued out of this Court at the instance of the Lords Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury, to find the said debt, and by an inquisition taken on the 12th day of the same month of March, the whole of the said debt was found to be due to his Majesty, in respect of the money issued to them under the said warrant and draft. On the 19th of March, 1800, two several writs of extent were issued on the part of the Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury against the Bankrupts, Hoyd and Company, both tested the same clay, the one directed to the Sheriff of the county of Herts, and the other to the Sheriff of [647] the county of Dorset, and on the same day two similar writs were issued against them on the part of the Commissioner's of his Majesty's Navy, in respect of the debt due to his Majesty on the said joint and field, Walter Boyd the younger, and .fames Drummoiicl, on a writ of immediate extent, issued at the instance of the Treasury into the county of Herts, Defendants." " Between our Sovereign Lord the King and Dame Joanna Rumbold, widow, Kwau Law, Esq. William Sheepshanks, clerk, and Edward Law, Esq. executors and trustees named in the will of Sir Thomas Humbold, Bart, deceased, claiming the property of certain lands and hereditaments seixed into his Majesty's hands on the writ of immediate extent last above-mentioned, Defendants." " Between our Sovereign Lord the King and William Mainwaring, Thomas Keid, and George Ward, assignees of the above named Walter Boyd the elder, Paul Benfield, and James Drummond, claiming also the property of certain lands and hereditaments seized into his Majesty's hands on the writ of immediate extent last above-mentioned, Defendants." " Between our Sovereign Lord the King and Charles Wall and Jonathan Hoare, claiming also the property of certain lands and hereditaments seized into his Majesty's hands on the writ of immediate extent last above-mentioned, Defendants." " Between our Sovereign Lord the King and Walter Hoyd the elder, Paul Benfield, Walter Boyd the younger, and James Drummond, on a writ of immediate extent, issued at the instance of the Admiralty into the county of Herts, Defendants." " Between our Sovereign Lord the King and the above named Dame Joanna Rnmbold, widow, Ewan Law, Esq. William Sheepshanks, clerk, and Edward Law, Esq., executors and trustees named in the will of Sir Thomas Rumbold, Bart., deceased, claiming the property of certain lands and hereditaments seized into his Majesty's hands on the writ of immediate extent last above-mentioned, Defendants." " Between our Sovereign Lord the King and the above-named William Mainwaring, Thomas Kedd, and George Ward, assignees of the above-named Walter Boyd the elder, Paul Benfiald, and James Drummond, and claiming also the property of certain lands and hereditaments seized into his Majesty's hands on the writ of immediate extent last above-mentioned, Defendants." " Between our Sovereign Lord the King and the above-named Charles Wall and Jonathan Hoare, claiming also the property of certain lands and hereditaments seized into his Majesty's hands on the writ of immediate extent last above-mentioned, Defendants." The above titles were considered very material in this case, as will be seen. In point of form, the Lord Chancellor observed " it would have been an insuperable objection to the appeal, that the order was entitled as in a cause, whereas it w;is in ten causes." II PRICE, 848. WAt,L V. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 593 several bond. By inquisitions taken on these several extents, 2:5(1 January, 1801, Paul Benfield was found to be seized of certain lands, tenements, &c. and also to, be possessed of certain leasehold estates in the said respective counties, and of goods and chattels, all which lands, &c. the said sheriffs seized into his Majesty's hands. Similar extents were issued both by the Treasury and the Navy Board into the city of London. On that issued at the instance of the Treasury certain effects were sedzed, and the produce paid in part discharge of the Treasury debt. On the 35th of March, 1800, Boyd and Company were declared bankrupts, and the Appellants were chosen their assignees. The several estates seized imdor the extents were afterwards sold by virtue of orders of the Court of Exchequer, and the purchase-money paid into that Court, arid after paymeut to the executors and trustees of certain mortgagees of monies duo to them respectively for principal and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen v Fay
...v. ChorltonENR 10 Hare, 646. Hodge v. The Attorney-General 3 Y. & C. 342. Hardwick v. WrightENR 35 Beav. 133. Wall v. Attorney-GeneralENR 11 Price, 643. Phillips v. FoxallELR L. R. 7 Q. B. 666. Lee v. JonesENR 17 C. B. (N. S.) 452. Gwynne v. BurnellENRENR 9 Bing. 544; 2 Bing. N. C. 7. The A......
-
The Attorney-General v Kissane
...BarnardoELR 23 Q. B. Div. 305. Knox v. Gavan 1 Jones, 190. Miller v. KnoxENR 6 Scott, 1; 4 Bing. N. C. 574. Wall v. Attorney-GeneralENR 11 Price, 643. Reg. v. FletcherELR 2 Q. B. Div. 43. Reg. v. Steel Ibid. 37. O'Shea v. O'SheaELR 15 P. D. 59. Ex parte BrosnanUNK 22 L. R. Ir. 334. Cox v. H......
-
Bignold and Another v Springfield and Others
...in the appeal. [82] It is clear, from the proceedings in that case, that the jurisdiction exercised * Watt v. The Attorney-general, 11 Price, 643. It appears from the printed appeal cases in Wall and others v. The Attorney-general (in Lincoln's Inn Library), that Boyd, Benfield and Co. rece......
-
Thomas v Montgomery
...Lordship. The only case cited was The King v. Mainwwnny in the Exchequer (2 Price 67, and, under the name of Wall v. Attorney-General, 11 Price, 643). the solicitor-general [Sugdeu], Mr. Home, Mr. Treslove, Mr. Knight, and Mr. Lyuch, for the residuary legatees, opposed the application. [733......