Between William Devaynes and Louisa his Wife, and Thomas Monsell (an Infant), Plaintiffs and Wm. Noble, Sam. Pepys Cockerell, Fred. Booth, Mary Devaynes. Elizabeth Smith, Lestock Wilson, John Morris, and Joseph Down, Defendants. and between Sir Thomas Baring, Bart., and Sir Frank Standish, Bart. (on behalf of themselves, and all other the Creditors of the partnership of William Devaynes, John Dawes, William Noble, Richard Henry Croft, and Richard Barwick, who shall come in and contribute, Company), Plaintiffs and the said william Noble, Samuel Pepys Cockerell. Frederick Booth, Lestock Wilson, John Morris, Joseph Dorien, Wm. Devaynes, and Louisa his Wife, Mary Devaynes, Elizabeth Smith, and Thomas Monsell, Defendants
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 July 1816 |
| Date | 30 July 1816 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 35 E.R. 767
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See S. C. 2 Russ. & My. 495. See Brown v. Weatherly, 1841, 12 Sim. 11; Pennell v. Deffell, 1853, 4 De G. M. & G. 384; Harford v. Lloyd, 1855, 20 Beav. 321; Brown v. Societe des Affreteurs du Great Eastern, 1867, 17 L. T. 494. For Sleech's Case, 1 Mer. 539, see Beresford v. Browning, 1875, L. R. 20 Eq. 573; Kendall v. Hamilton, 1878, 3 C. P. D. 407; In re Hallett's Estate, 1880, 13 Ch. D. 735; Hancock v. Smith, 1889, 41 Ch. D. 456. For Carr v. Carr, 1 Mer. 541. n., see Parker v. Marchant, 1842, 1 Y. & C. C. C. 306. For Clayton's Case, 1 Mer. 572, see Pennell v. Deffell, 1853, 4 De G. M. & G. 384; Wickham v. Wickham, 1855, 2 K. & J. 489; Cavendish v. Geaves, 1857, 24 Beav. 176; In re Medewe's Trust, 1859, 26 Beav. 592; In re Boys, 1870, L. R. 10 Eq. 469; Thompson v. Hudson, 1871, L. R. 6 Ch. 328; Bateman's Case, In re Devonport & South Devon Steam Flour Mill Co., 1873, 42 L. J. Ch. 577; City Discount Co. v. M'Lean, 1874, L. R. 9 C. P. 698; Hooper v. Keay, 1875,1 Q. B. D. 182; Lacey v. Hill, 1876, 77, 4 Ch. D. 537; and sub nom. Read v. Bailey, 3 App. Cas. 94; In re Hamilton, 1877, 25 W. R. 761; Kinnaird v. Webster, 1878, 10 Ch. D. 139; Anning's Claim, In re Taurine Co., 1878, 38 L. T. 55; Browning v. Baldwin, 1879, 40 L T. 249; In re Hallett's Estate, 1880, 13 Ch. D. 696; Ex parte Hardcastle, 1881, 44 L. T. 524; In re Sherry, London & County Banking Co. v. Terry, 1884, 25 Ch. D. 698; Ex parte Watson, 1888, 21 Q. B. D. 307; Hancock v. Smith, 1889, 41 Ch. D. 456; In re Stenning, [1895] 2 Ch. 433; Cory v. Owners of Turkish Steamship Mecca, The Mecca, [1897] A. C. 286; Mutton v. Peat, [1899] 2 Ch. 556; Smith v. Betty, [1903] 2 K. B. 323.
[529] Between william devaynbs and louisa his Wife, and thomas monsell (an Infant), Plaintiffs and wm. noble, sam. pepys cockeeell, fred. booth, maey devaynes, elizabeth smith, lestock wilson, john morris, and joseph down, Defendants. And between Sir thomas baring, Bart., and Sir frank standish, Bart, (on behalf of themselves, and al! other the Creditors of the partnership of william devaynes, john dawes, william noble, richard henry croft, and richard barwick, who shall come in and contribute, &c.), Plaintiffs [530] and the said william noble, samuel pepys cockerell. frederick booth, lestock wilson, john morris, joseph dorien, wm. devaynes, and louisa his Wife, mary devaynes, elizabeth smith, and thomas monsell, Defendants. Bolls. July 15-30, 1816. [See S. C. 2 Russ. & My. 495. See Brown v. Weatherly, 1841, 12 Sim. 11; Pennell v. Deffell, 1853, 4 De G. M. & G. 384 ; Harford v. Lloyd, 1855, 20 Beav. 321; Brown v. Societe des Affreteurs du Great Eastern, 1867,17 L. T. 494. For Sleech's Case, 1 Mer. 539, see Beresford v. Browning, 1875, L. R. 20 Eq. 573 ; Kendall v. Hamilton, 1878, 3 C. P. D. 407 ; In re Hallett's Estate, 1880, 13 Ch. D. 735 ; Hancock v. Smith, 1889, 41 Ch. D. 456. For Carr v. Carr, 1 Mer. 541. n., see Parker v. Marchant, 1842, 1 Y. & C. C. C. 306. For Clayton's Case, 1 Mer. 572. see Pennell v. Deffell, 1853, 4 De G..M. & G. 384; Wickham v. Wickham, 1855, 2 K. & J. 489; Cavendish v. Geaves, 1857, 24 Beav. 176 ; In re Medewe's Trust, 1859, 26 Beav. 592 ; In re Boys, 1870, L. R. 10 Eq. 469 ; Thompson v. Hudson, . 1871, L. R. 6 Ch. 328; Bateman's Case, In re Devonport & South Devon Steam Flour Mill Co., 1873, 42 L. J. Ch. 577 ; City Discount Co. v. M'Lean, 1874, L. R.. 9 C. P. 698 ; Hooper v. Keay, 1875,1 Q. B. D. 182 ; Lacey v. Hill, 1876, 77, 4 Ch. D. 537 ; and sub nom. Read v. Bailey, 3 App. Gas. 94: In re Hamilton. 1877, 25 W. R. 761 ; Kinnaird v. Webster, 1878, 10 Ch. D. 139 ; Anning's Claim, In re Taurine Co., 1878, 38 L. T. 55; Browning v. Baldwin, 1879, 40 L T. 249 ; In re Hallett's Estate, 1880, 13 Ch. D. 696; Ex parte Hardcastle, 1881, 44 L. T. 524 ; In re Sherry, London & County Banking Co. v. Terry, 1884, 25 Ch. D. 698;, Ex parte Watson, 1888, 21 Q. B...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re Hughes
... ... In the Matter of JOSEPH N. HUGHES. a Bankrupt ... Bankruptcy - ... must be treated on the same basis as the other moneys remaining in the client account, because ... Rule in Devaynes v. Noble [Clayton's Case] (1816) 1 Mer. 572 ... with the concurrence of the Chief Justice shall make provision about the opening and keeping by ... 1, provides that a banking company shall not, in connection with any transaction on ... relating to clients' accounts were to come into force. The regulations of 1955 have been ... client account) belongs (a) to those of the said client creditors of the bankrupt whose moneys ... ...
-
Re Money Markets International Stockbrokers Ltd
... ... 910. Devaynes v. Noble, Clayton's case (1816) 1 Mer. 572 ... Farrelly [1962] I.R. 386. Company - Winding up - Equity - Funds held in trust - ... - Fund in company current account mixed with other funds - Method of distribution of available funds ... contract entered into on the applicant's behalf on the 15th February,1999, for the purchase of ... applicant, uniquely amongst the client creditors, transferred prior to the settlement date, the ... basis among all the investors who could be said to have contributed to the acquisition of those ... Hallett (1880) 13 Ch.D. 696 may come into play. Having regard to the uniqueness ... ...
-
Ahmad Hamad Algosaibi and Brothers Company (“AHAB”) v Saad Investments Company Ltd (in Official Liquidation) (“SICL”) and Others
...Mr Hourigan and Mr Lawler, as will be further discussed below. 2065 {A2/46}. 2066 {U1/1/256}. 2067 Devaynes v Noble, Clayton's Case (1816) 1 Mer 529 2068 Annex M1/2–5; 7 {A2/46}. 2069 Annex M1/6 {A2/46}. 2070 A party in the position of a wrongdoing trustee includes an express trustee or fid......
-
Primeo Fund (in Official Liquidation) v Bank of Bermuda (Cayman) Ltd and HSBC Securities Services (Luxembourg) Sa
...Cas. 337; [1889–90] All E.R. Rep. 1; 61 L.T. 265; 5 T.L.R. 625; 58 L.J. Ch. 864, referred to. (25)Devaynes v. Noble, Clayton’s Case (1816), 35 E.R. 767; 1 Mer. 529, considered. (26)E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. S.T. Dupont, [2003] EWCA Civ 1368; [2006] 1 W.L.R. 2793; [2006] C.P. Rep. 25;......
-
Who Owns A Bribe?
...rather than an application of a backward tracing rule. 26 Federal Republic of Brazil v Durant Intl Corp [2013] JCA 071, at para 69. 27 (1816) 35 ER 767. 28 See Barlow Clowes Intl Ltd (in liquidation) v Vaughan [1992] 4 All ER 22, itself an 29 Ibid; Russell-Cooke Trust Co v Prentis [2002] EW......
-
Preliminary Sections
...675; 105 LJ.K.B. 571; 154 L.T. 586; 52 T.L.R. 356; 80 Sol. Jo. 285. 112 CASES REFERRED TO IN 1962 Clayton's Case: Devaynes v. Noble (1816) 1 Mer. 529; 8 L.J. Ch. 256; 35 E.R. 767, 781. 125 Collins v. Vestry of Paddington (1880) 5 Q.B.D. 368; 49 L.J.Q.B. 264; 42 L.T. 573; 28 W.R. 588. 191 Co......
-
Restitution
...property. The first-in-first-out rule in Clayton”s case 19.38 The nature of the rule in Clayton”s case (Devaynes v Noble(1816) 1 Mer 572; 35 ER 767) was considered briefly in observation by Andrew Phang Boon Leong JC (as he then was) in Q & M Enterprises Sdn Bhd v Poh Kiat[2005] 4 SLR 494. ......
-
THE SHORTFALL CONUNDRUM: A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR ALLOCATING LOSSES IN A MIXED FUND IN AUSTRALIA.
...Which a Shortfall Exists' (2014) 30(1) Banking and Finance Law Review 39 ('Demystifying the LIBR'). (6) Devaynes v Noble; Clayton's Case (1816) 1 Mer 529; 35 ER 767, 781 (Chancery) ('Clayton's (7) 'Segregation' is a method for protecting a beneficiary's assets by identifying them separately......