Bowes, ex parte
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 November 1798 |
| Date | 12 November 1798 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 31 E.R. 86
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Ex parte Crabb, 1856, 8 De G. M. & G. 284, 289.
[168] michaelmas term, 39 geo. III. 1798. bowes, Ex parte. Nov. 12th, 1798. [See Ex parte Crabb, 1856, 8 De G. M. & G. 284, 289.] The owner of a share in a ship is not in that character subject to the bankrupt laws. Q. Whether lying two months in prison charged in actions for debts and being surrendered in discharge of bail can constitute an act of bankruptcy; the original commitment being under a criminal sentence; during which the party was so charged. Commission of bankruptcy superseded on the grounds, that the act of bankruptcy was near eleven years before, and perfectly notorious : and that it was founded upon the debt of a creditor, who must of necessity gain the whole direction ; and the debt being a matter of account, disputed by the bankrupt in an action, in which he swore to a debt to him, and by filing a bill in equity. The petition was presented by Andrew Robinson Bowes, against whom a commission of bankruptcy issued on the 3d of August 1798, praying, that the commission may be superseded at the expence of Francis Peacock, the petitioning creditor; or that the proceedings may be suspended until the trial of an action brought by the bankrupt in order to try the validity of the commission. P'tji1 The petitioner was declared a bankrupt by the Commissioners at Guildhall upon the following evidence. .As to the act of bankruptcy.-The petitioner was on the 16th of June 1787 committed to the King's Bench prison by order of the Court of King's Bench ; and since that time he has been and now is charged with several actions. On the 26th of November 1787, 4 VES. JUN. 169. EX PARTE BOWES 87 he was surrendered in discharge of his bail at the suit of Robert Grundall; at whose suit he has ever since been detained. As to the trading.-T. Willoughby deposed, that it appeared by a certificate of registry at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, dated the 7th of November 1786, and transmitted to the Custom-house, London, that the petitioner was part owner of a ship, called the Aurora of Newcastle; and no alteration in the property of the said vessel appears to have taken place as to the said share until the 16th of April 1794. Samuel Marshall deposed, that by the direction of the petitioner the deponent sold an eighth part of the Aurora, as the petitioner's share of the said ship, in October 1792, for £50. [169] It was proved by the clerk of the Cockett-office, that the Aurora in 1787 brought, coals from different collieries to London. It was also proved by a coal-factor of London, that at different times from April 1787 to September 1790, Robert Millner, as ship's husband of the Aurora, consigned various quantities of coals from different collieries to a coal-factor in London. Robert Edington deposed, that the petitioner was sole owner of one colliery, and was concerned in four other collieries, called the Grand Alliance, but had no interest in the. collieries, with the produce of which the Aurora was freighted; that from the year 1787 to 1792 he was a part-owner of the Aurora; and that the said bankrupt freighted the said ship with coals of other persons, and endeavoured to get his living thereby; that the said ship Aurora had been freighted home from the Baltic with goods of various descriptions on account of the said bankrupt and the other proprietors of the ship. The affidavit of Mary Millner widow and administratrix of Robert Millner stated, that the bankrupt was an original owner of one sixteenth part of the ship Aurora from 1777 or 1778 till the latter end of 1792 : that during that period she traded, and was freighted on several voyages in the coal trade, to the Baltic, and elsewhere, on account of all the owners ; stating particularly several voyages from the books of the ship ; and that in 1779 she went into the transport service, and was employed by Government for some years. A letter from Millner to the petitioner, dated the 2d of December 1785, stated an account of the profits of the ship Aurora; and struck the balance due to the petitioner for his share ; which was paid by a draft of that date. As to the petitioning creditor's debts.-Francis Peacock deposed, that the bankrupt was before the date and suing forth of the commission and still is indebted to the deponent in the sum of £8200 on the balance of accounts for money lent and advanced, laid out and expended, and for work and labour, care and diligence, in the concerns of the bankrupt. [170] The affidavit of a clerk to Peacock stated, that Peacock was retained as agent to the bankrupt in 1785-; that the bankrupt drew upon Peacock for considerable sums ; which were paid out of Peacock's private effects ; and that the deponent frequently freighted ships with coals by the bankrupt's direction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coppinger v Bradley
...Jackson v. HumphrysENR 1 Salk. 273. Benton v. SuttonUNK 1 B. & P. 24. Rex v. PageENR 7 Price, 616; S. C. B. & B. 308. Ex parte Bowes 4 Ves. jun. 168. Drewe v. LainsonENR 11 Ad. & El. 537. Parsons v. Loyd 3 Wils. 341. Dand v. KingscoteENR 6 Mees. & W. 174. Brancker v. Molyneux 1 Scott & N. R......