Brickwood v Miller
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 August 1817 |
| Date | 25 August 1817 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 35 E.R. 555
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 1 Mer. 4. See 3 Mer. 279.
[270] briokwood v. miller. June 24, July 12, [1815J [S. C. 1 Her. 4. See 3 Mer. 279.] Order, after several witnesses had been examined, to withdraw rejoinder and rejoin de novo, for the purpose of giving notice, under stat. 49 Geo. 3, c. 121, s. 11, of the intention to dispute act of bankruptcy and petitioning creditor's debt : but upon the terms of undertaking to pay such costs as the Court might afterwards direct. The Plaintiffs were the assignees of Thomas Ibbot Pierce, a bankrupt, under a commission issued before the stat 49 Geo. 3. c. 121. The Defendant Miller by his answer, which was filed some time after the passing the Act, stated that he did not know, and could not form any belief, as to the petitioning creditor's debt, or any act of bankruptcy : and, in the usual language, craved leave to refer the Plaintiffs to such proof thereof as they should be able to make. The cause being at issue, all Miller's witnesses having been examined, and some also of the Plaintiffs' witnesses, and publication standing enlarged till the next seal, under an order for that purpose obtained by the Plaintiffs ; the Defendant Miller, who had omitted to give the notice required by the llth section of the act, of his intention to dispute the petitioning creditor's debt arid an act of bankruptcy, now moved that he might be at liberty to withdraw his rejoinder, and rejoin de novo, for the purpose of giving the notice. The motion was supported by an affidavit of Miller's solicitor, stating that the notice was omitted to be given merely through inadvertency, and that he verily believed it was essential to the justice of the case that Miller should be at liberty to put the assignees upon proof of the petitioning creditor's debt and an act of bank ruptcy.- . . [27ll Mx.Lovat for the motion, cited Berks v. Wigan (1 Ves. & Beames, 221). Sir S. Bomilly against the motion. The Lord Chancellor [Eldon] made the order ; but upon the terms of the Defendant Miller undertaking to pay all such costs as the Court should afterwards think fit to direct, upon any application to be made to it, on behalf of the Plaintiffs for that purpose.
English Reports Citation: 35 E.R. 579
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. G. Coop. 270; See 3 Mer. 279.
brickwoot) v. miller. Nov. 3, 1815. [S. C. G. Coop. 270; See 3 Her. 279.] Order, that Defendant might be at liberty to rejoin de novo, giving notice of his intention to dispute the Bankruptcy ; allowed to be retained only on his consenting to admit as evidence, the depositions of a deceased witness, as being necessary to prove the Act of Bankruptcy. Bill, by assignees of a Bankrupt, charged an Act of Bankruptcy and Commission issued on 29th January 1805, before the statute 49 Geo. 3, c. 121. The answer, filed after the statute, not admitting [5] the Act of Bankruptcy, referred the Plaintiff to such proof as he might be able to make. On the llth oiJuly, an Order (2 Eose, 216 ; Cooper, 270) was obtained by the Defendant, upon undertaking to pay all such costs as the Court should upon future application direct, that he might be at liberty to withdraw his rejoinder, and to rejoin de novo forthwith, and to give notice of his intention to dispute the Act of Bankruptcy and the petitioning Creditor's Debt, according to the statute. The Plaintiff now moved to discharge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wait
...the joint effects of both, and they are therefore entitled to the moiety of the solvent partner. In a subsequent case, Brickwood v. Miller (3 Mer. 279), Sir William Grant was not disposed to carry the doctrine so far as had been done in Dutton v. Morrison, and held, that the assignees of a ......
-
Ex parte Robinson, Re Houghton and Watts
...of the partnership estate from that to which those cases would lead. But it must lie observed, that Sir W. (irant, in Urickwood v. Miller, 3 Mer. 279, seoms to have thought the principle carried too far in Dutton v. Morrison, as appears particularly from his observations in pages 281, 282; ......