Chapman v Pickersgill

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of the King's Bench
Judgment Date01 January 1799
Date01 January 1799

English Reports Citation: 95 E.R. 734



734 MICHAELMAS TERM, 3 GEO. III. 1762 2 WILS. K. B. 146. michaelmas term, 3 geo. III. 1762. chapman versus pickersgill. C. B. Case for falsely and maliciously suing out a commission of bankruptcy which was afterwards superseded, is a very proper action at law, though the Chancellor has power to give 2001. damages by statute. Action upon the case for falsely and maliciously suing out a commission of bankrupt against the plaintiff, who declared upon three counts; in the first, having stated his honesty, he alledges that the defendant did falsely and maliciously exhibit a petition to the Lord Chancellor that the plaintiff was indebted to him in 2001. and had committed an act of bankruptcy, that the commission thereupon issued, and the defendant was declared a bankrupt, and that afterwards the commission was superseded ; and the plaintiff avers that he never committed any act of bankruptcy : the second, count is much the same, with the like averment; the third count is much the same, but without such averment. To this the defendant pleaded the general issue, and there was a general verdict and damages for the plaintiff, taken upon all the three counts; whereupon it was moved that the judgment might be arrested for two reasons; first, because this action will not lie, there being in this case a particular remedy given by the Statutes of Bankrupt, 5 Geo. and 5 Geo. 2, which enact, that before any commission shall issue, the petitioning creditor shall (among other things) give bond to the Lord Chancellor in the penalty of 2001. to be conditioned for proving his debt, and the party a bankrupt before the commissioners, and upon a trial at law, &e. and if it shall appear that the commission was taken out fraudulently or maliciously, the Chancellor may [146] order satisfaction to the party grieved, or may assign the bond to the said party, who may sue the same in his own name. The second point on which the judgment was moved to be arrested was, because it is not averred in the third count, that the plaintiff was not indebted to the defendant in 2001., or that he never committed any act of bankruptcy. This case was argued twice at the Bar, in two former terms, by Serjeant Hewitt and Serjeant Burland for the defendant, and by Serjeant Whitaker and Serjeant Nares for the plaintiff; and in this term the Lord Chief Justice gave the opinion...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Willers v Joyce (No 1)
    • United Kingdom
    • Supreme Court
    • 20 July 2016
    ...have done formerly." Again, that was said in the context of the claim for malicious indictment. 107 Then in Chapman v Pickersgill (1762) 2 Wils KB 145, Lord Mansfield CJ considered whether an action would lie for falsely and maliciously petitioning the Lord Chancellor that the plaintiff owe......
  • R v Macfarlane; ex parte O'flanagan and O'kelly
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • Invalid date

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT