Cuff v Platell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 November 1822 |
| Date | 02 November 1822 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 38 E.R. 796
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
[2423 cuff v. platell. Nov. '2, 1822. A general demurrer for want of equity allowed, where it appeared on the face of the bill, that, of two co-plaintiffs, one had not any interest in the matters of the suit. A person of the name of Lincoln being in embarrassed circumstances, an agreement was entered into that his property should be assigned to Cuff and Griffith in trust for his creditors. For this purpose a deed of trust was prepared ; and Cuff and Griffith, acting as trustees, though from the statement in the bill it was apparent that the intended deed of trust never had any operation as a valid instrument, took possession of the property of Lincoln, and sold part of it. In making the sales, they employed the Defendant Platell as their agent, and he received and still retained the proceeds. Afterwards a commission of bankrupt issued against Lincoln, under which he was declared a bankrupt; and two assignees were elected, of whom Cuff was the survivor. The bill was filed by Cuff and Griffith ; and, after stating in detail the transactions above referred to, prayed that Platell might account for the monies received by him, arising from the sale of Lincoln's effects, and that he might deliver up the title-deeds of certain real estates of Lincoln which had come into his hands. Platell demurred to the bill for want of equity. Mr. Soupell, in support of the demurrer, contended, that this was merely a bill for money had and received to the use of the Plaintiffs, and that their remedy was at law and not in equity. Mr. Barber, contra, argued, that the money had come into the hands of Platell as the agent of Cuff and Grif-[23]-fith, and that a principal had always a right to make his agent account in a court of equity. Sir John Leach...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sanger and Others v Gardiner and Others
...jun. 323 ; Morrley v. Lord Hawke, cited in Small v. Attwood, 2 Younge & Jervis, 520 ; Maud v. Addon, 2 Simons, 331 ; Cuff v. Pkitall, 4 Russell, 242 ; Knye v. Moore, 1 Simons & Stuart, 61 ; Cholmmileleif v. Clinton, 2 Jacob & Walker, 1, 135; S. C. 4 Bligh, O. S. 1, 81 ; Exeter C'ollege v. E......
-
Corballis v The Company of Undertakers of The Grand Canal
...v. RichardsonENR 6 Madd. 89. Makepeace v. HaythorneENR 4 Russ. 244. King of Spain v. MachadoENR 4 Russ. 225, 560. Cuff v. PlatellENR 4 Russ. 242. Delondre v. ShawENR 2 Sim. 237. CASES IN EQUITY. 29 1840. Equity Evehr. ( In the Equity Exchequer.) Nov.5,6,7 , 12. BY the act of Parliament, the......
-
Fulham, Lynch and McCarthy v McCarthy (Administrator of Alexander McCarthy) and Others
...interest in it, but are merely the agents of their a plaintiffs, a general demurrer to the whole bill is a good defence. Cuff v. Platell (4 Russ. 242), is to the same effect. Both these cases were decided on demurrer, and it must be admitted that that makes some difference. But other cases ......
-
Harrington and Milligan v Long
...the suit; and he cited the following cases in support of that proposition :-The King of Spain v. Machatlo (4 Russ., 225); Ouff v. Platell (4 Russ., 242) Makepeace v. Haytliarne (4 Russ., 244). the master of the rolls [Sir John Leach]. There is no principle which prevents a person from assig......