Cook v Sturgis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 May 1855 |
| Date | 08 May 1855 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 44 E.R. 1
BEFORE THE LORDS JUSTICES.
For subsequent proceedings, see Cook v. Sturgis, 1855, 3 De G. & J. 506.
Reports of CASES HEARD and DETERMINED by the LORD CHANCELLOR and the COURT OF APPEAL IN CHANCERY. 1855-57. By J. P. DE GEX, S. MACNAGHTEN, and A. GORDON, Esqrs., Barristers - at - Law. 1858. Vol. VII. [NOTE.-The Cases in this Volume before the lord chancellor are reported by Messrs. macnaghten & gordon ; and those before the Lards Justices of the Court of Appeal by Mr. de gex."| [1] dyson v. hornby. dyson v. bourne. erle v. dyson. erle v. bourne. hornby w. mathison. cook v. sturgis. Before the Lords Justices. Nov. 17, 1854 ; May 8, 1855. [For subsequent proceedings, see Cook v. Sturgis, 1855, 3 De G-. & J. 506.] Held by L. J. Turner, dubitante L. J. Knight Bruce, that, although the property to which a debtor was equitably entitled at the time of his taking the benefit of the Act for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors may far exceed the amount of the debts payable under the insolvency, neither he nor a purchaser from him can intercept the title of the assignee under the insolvency to recover the surplus without shewing that the property will be in danger if the assignee be permitted to receive it, or that there is some impediment to an application to the Insolvent Court to remove the assignee, if such is the case. It not appearing clear to L. J. Knight Bruce, in the case before the Court, that there was a net surplus : Held, by both their Lordships, reversing a decision of a Vice-Chancellor, that no interference with the title of the assignee ought to have taken place. This was an appeal from an order in the above causes, dated the 24th of April 1854, and made by the Vice-Chancellor Stuart upon a petition in all the causes, and upon the hearing of a claim in the cause of Cook v. Sturgis, which was filed under the following circumstances:- George William Dyson, the Plaintiff in the suit of Dyson v. Hornby, was entitled to some considerable funds [2] standing in trust in the suit of Dyson v. Hornby. He took the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors Act, and James Markwell was appointed to be the assignee under his insolvency. Afterwards, by an indenture, dated the 8th of July 1850, made between the insolvent of the first part, Robert Cook of the second part, and a trustee for Robert Cook of the third part, in consideration of the purchase-money therein mentioned to him paid by Cook, the insolvent conveyed and assigned unto Cook, his heirs, executors and administrators, the real estates therein particularly mentioned, and all other the real estate, copyhold and freehold, late of or belonging to a certain testator named John Edwards, subject to the debts and charges upon the same therein mentioned; and likewise the life interest of the insolvent of and in the share therein mentioned of the residuary personal estate of his late father C. xxiv.- 1 2 DYSON V. HORNBY 7DBO.M. &O.S. Thomas Edwards Dyson, deceased, and all and every other the estate and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Troup v Richardo
...ffV-[491]-maki v. De Lisle (3 Beav. 18); Westhead v. Keene (1 Beav. 287); Rochfart v. Batttrsby (2 H. L. Gas. 388); Dysm v. Hornby (7 De G. M. & G. 1); Heath v. Cliad-wick (2 Ph. 649). the lord chancellor. Two causes of demurrer to this bill are assigned-want of equity and multifariousness.......
-
Cook v Sturgis
...the order, and ordered the fund [510] to be transferred and paid to the Defendant Sturgis as assignee under the first insolvency (see 7 De G. M. & G. 1). On the 12th of July 1855 the Chief Commissioner mado the following order in the matters of both the insolvencies:-Upon paying all debts u......