Breton v Cope, Executor
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1820 |
| Date | 01 January 1820 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 72
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
breton v. cope, executor (Parol evidence cannot be given of the transfer of stock, but copies from the books of the bank must be proved Marsh v Colnet, 2 Esp 665, S. P An instrument executed m the presence of a subscribing witness cannot be proved by any other (o) It is now clearly settled that a concerted act of bankruptcy cannot be taken advantage of by creditors privy to it, and consequently that a commission sued out on the petition of any such creditor may be overturned, Hoopei v Smith, I Black 441; Cauiey v Hopkins, Co. Bank La 95 , Field v Bellamy, Bull N. P 39 , Eyre v. Birkbeck, 2 T. R 595 , Bantford v Baton, ibid , Tappenden v. Burgess, 4 East, 230. Stewart v. Richman, 1 Esp 108 , ejc parte Edmonson, 1 Ves 303 , Ex parte Bourne, 15 Ves 145 ; Bfich v. Gooch, 4 Camp 232, I Holt, 13 Though the contrary had been ruled by Mr J Foster in Branday v Mutidee, Bull N. P 39 But if the petitioning creditor was not privy to the act of bankruptcy, it is no objection that the assignees were. Tappenden v. Buryess, ub sup Jackson v Itving, 2 Camp 49 And a creditor who, along with others, had become party to a deed of trust, by which in consideration of the assignment of certain debts due to their debtor for their benefit, they released their debts, was held by Lord Ellenborough not to be precluded from suing out a commission of bankruptcy against the debtor, on its being discovered that he had previously to the execution of the deed committed a secret act of bankruptcy, and his Lordship's opinion was confirmed by the Court of K B , Doe dem. Pitcher v. Anderson, I Stark 262 But in another case where the attorney of D the petitioning creditor, was also the attorney of the bankrupts, and having concerted with them that they should be denied to D , afterwards [41] went with him to each of their houses, where they were respectively denied accordingly Although D was not privy to such denials, yet inasmuch as the attorney was his agent, as well as the agent of the bankrupts, and accompanied him for the purpose of procuring such denials ; Mr J. Burroughheld, that such denials were fraudulent acts of bankruptcy, and could not support a commission issued on the petition of D P-tosser v. Smith, 1 Holt, 442 PEAKE44. STANDEE V. STANDEN 73 person, even after it is cancelled A transfer of stork is evidence on a plea of payment to an action on a bond ) Debt on a bond of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Same v Bateman
...v. Jenyns. Ibid. 508 n. Kingston v. Knibbs. 3 Camp. 200, Moxon v. Atkins. 1 Taunt. 463, Grant v. Paxton. Selwyn, N. P. 963. [See also Peake, 43, Chaurand v. Angerstein. But the usage must be general, in order to bind the insurer : therefore a usage at Lloyd's will not bind him, unless he be......