Bowser v Hughes and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1817 |
| Date | 01 January 1817 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 145 E.R. 813
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER
1 ANST. 101. BOWSER V. HUGHES 813 [101] BowsKR v. HufiHEH and (h'HEKS. Same day.- Bill by mi insolvent debtor against his assignees, under the 14 (loo. III. and a debtor to his estate, stating collusion between them in not recovering the debt, praying that the assignees might be removed, and that specific performance of an agreement for a lease might be decreed against the debtor ; plea, by the debtor, the assignment under the act, and that the right to sue was vested in the assignees ; that the estate is insufficient, and denying collusion, held good. The bill sbited that the plaintift' agreed with the defendant Hughes for the lease of iron works, and had expended large sums on the works, but falling into difficulties, was compelled to accept from the defendant a less beneficial lease than that agreed upon ; that the defendant afterwards broke the covenants to be performed by him, both by nonpayment of money and in other particulars, by which the plaintiff was much injured ; that the plaintiff afterwards being put in prison for debt, and being insolvent, was advised to take the benefit of the act 14 Geo. III. fur relief of insolvent debtors, and was brought up for that purpose at the quarter sessions, and discharged in pursuance of the said act; that the other defendants were chosen his assignees, and the plaintiff having delivered in a schedule, according to the directions of the act, his estate was vested in them; that his assignees, although he is entitled by the act to the surplus oi his estate after discharging his debts, and although they have received sums fully sufficient for that purpose, have always refused to give him in any account, and have by collusion with the defendant Hughes neglected to sue him on the covenants ; and therefore the bill prayed an account of the effects come to the bands of the assignees, and that the surplus should be paid to the plaintiff, and also that an account be taken of the plaintiff's demands against the defendant Hughes, and that the defendant Hughes be decreed to execute to the pla.intiff a new lease according to the [102] original agreement, and that the defendants his assignees be removed, and others appointed in their place. To this bill the defendant Hughes pleaded the insolvent debtors' act 14 Geo. III. by which (as in the plea stated) it is enacted, that insolvent prisoners, complying with certain regulations...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Major v Aukland
...the Court deems to be collusion, are sufficient to sustain the suit, at least until those facts shall be disproved : Bowser v. Hughes (1 Anstr. 101). They [81] mentioned also two unreported eases: Byne v. lackburn,(l) and Kirlew v. Rayner.() the ViCE-CHANCELLOE [Sir James Wigram]. The Plain......
-
Kaye v Fosbrooke
...(5 Ves. 583), Ta/rleton v. Hornby (1 You. & Col. 172), Hammond v. Attwood (3 Madd. 158), Sarim v. Davis (18 Ves. 72), Bowser v. Hughes (1 Anst. 101). [30] Mr. Jacob and Mr. Geldart, in support of the bill. The Defendant is suing the Plaintiff, and, at the same time, insists that the Plainti......