Christie, Assignee of the Estate of Elliott, a Bankrupt, against Unwin, and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 January 1840 |
| Date | 18 January 1840 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 113 E.R. 457
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
S. C. 3 P. & D. 204; 4 Jur. 363. See Les v. Rowley, 1858, 8 El. & Bl. 857; Dale's case, 1881, 6 Q. B. D. 416.
[373] chkistie, Assignee of the Estate of Elliott, a Bankrupt, against unwin, AND another. Saturday, January 18th, 1840. An order made by the Lord Chancellor under stat. 6 G. 4, c. 16, s. 18, must shew on the face of it whatever is necessary to give jurisdiction. E.g. That the creditor applying to have his debt substituted for that of the petitioning creditor had proved a sufficient debt before making the application. And this is not shewn sufficiently by stating that the application was made by persons who " were creditors of the bankrupt," and that their debt " proved under the fiat," or so much thereof as was sufficient to support such fiat, was incurred not anterior to the debt of the petitioning creditor. Where the order stated such application made by B., and that the debt of C., the petitioning creditor, was insufficient to support the fiat, and that the debt of B., proved under the fiat, was incurred not anterior to the said debt of B. (instead of " C."): Held, that the words " of B." might be rejected as surplusage, and that the order sufficiently shewed B.'s debt to be not anterior to that of the petitioning creditor. [S. C. 3 P. & D. 204 ; 4 Jur. 363. See Lee v. Rowley, 1858, 8 El. & Bl. 857 ; Dale's case, 1881, 6 Q. B. D. 416.] Trover by assignee for goods converted after the bankruptcy. Pleas. 1. Not guilty. 2. That Elliott was not a bankrupt, in manner, &e. 3. That plaintiff was not lawfully possessed as assignee, &c. Issues thereon. Notice of disputing the petitioning creditor's debt, and the act of bankruptcy. On the trial before Bosanquet J., at the Nottingham Summer Assizes, 1838, it appeared that the commission against Elliott had been proceeded in by an order of the Lord Chancellor, made under stat. 6 G. 4, c. 16, s. 18 (a), in the following words. " In Bankruptcy. Court of Review. " Wednesday, the 31st day of January, 1838. " In the Matter of Thomas Elliott, a Bankrupt. " Whereas George Hall, of Manchester, in the county of Lancaster, gentleman, one of the public registered [374] officers of certain persons united in copartnership for (a) Stat 6 G. 4, c. 16, s. 18, enacts, "That if after adjudication the debt or debts of the petitioning creditor or creditors, or any of them, be found insufficient to support a commission, it shall be lawful for the Lord Chancellor, upon the application of any other creditor or creditors, having proved any debt or debts sufficient to support a commission, provided such debt or debts has or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The King (Martin) v Mahony
...B. 393. (5) 5 Q. B. 469. (6) 1 M. & G. 257. (7) 2 T. R. 285. (1) 1 Q. B. 66. (2) 1 Br. & B. 432. (3) 1 M. & G. 257. (4) 2 Q. B. 624. (5) 11 A. & E. 373. (6) 3 Q. B. 800. (7) 9 Ex., at p. 140. (8) 14 Q. B., at p. 62. (9) 14 Q. B., at p. 718. (10) 5 E. & B., at p. 56. (11) 6 E. & B., at p. 16......
-
Taylor against Clemson and Vaughan
...founded on such order. There Williams J. stated that there was no difference between a conviction and an order. In Christie v. Unwin (11 A. & E. 373), the Lord Chancellor, under stat. 6 G. 4, c. 16, s. 18, had made an order, substituting a creditor's debt for that of the petitioning credito......
-
George James Gordon, Deceased, and of The Act 13 & 14 Vict c 35
...as a release to the after-acquired property of the insolvent. They referred to Watisan v. Humphrey (10 Exch. 781); Christie v. Unwin (11 A. & E. 373); Lee, v. Emaley (8 Ell. & B. 857); Clatjgi'.t's case (2 Bank. & Ins. Gas. 101). Mr. R. Palmer*and Mr. Cotton, for the representatives of G. J......
-
Trott v Smith, Executor of R Edwards, Deceased
...shewn by proper averments that all those ptocefdings had ;been taken without which assignees could not come in esse. Christie v, Umain (11 Ad, & E. 373 ; 3 P. & I). 204), Pitt v. Chappelmu (8 M. & W. 616). The precedent in 3 Chit. PI. 775 contains ati express averment of the choice [693] of......