Curtis v Perry
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 March 1802 |
| Date | 10 March 1802 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 31 E.R. 1285
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Chasteauneuf v. Capeyron, 1882, 7 App. Cas. 131.
curtis v. perry. March 8th and 10th, 1802. [See Chasteauneuf v. Capeyron, 1882, 7 App. Gas. 131.] Ships purchased by one partner held separate property as between the creditors after his bankruptcy and the death of the other, upon the circumstances ; particularly the Registry being made in the name of the one partner only ; and being afterwards continued for a purpose, that would have prevented any claim of the other : viz. a fraud upon an Act of Parliament. Henry Nantes and Richard Muilman French Chiswell carried on business in London in partnership as merchants, under the firm of Richard Muilman and Company. In 1796 Nantes purchased several ships ; the sales of which were duly registered under the Act of Parliament (stat. 26 Geo. 111. c. 60, s. 17) as the sole property of Nantes, On the 3d of February 1797, Chiswell died ; and on the llth of the same month a Commission of Bankruptcy issued against Nantes, [740] as the surviving partner. The Plaintiffs Curtis and Clarke had in 1796 supplied some of the ships, purchased by Nantes, with biscuit ; other Plaintiffs has supplied other sea stores ; and some as ship builders had become creditors in respect of the ships. Under an order made in the bankrupcty the Plaintiffs proved their debts upon the separate estate of Nantes : but a claim being set up by the joint creditors to the ships, as being the property of the partnership, the bill was filed ; praying, that they may be declared to be part of the separate estate of Nantes, and applied in payment of the Plaintiffs and the other separate creditors. The Defendants, the assignees under the Commission, by their answer admitting, that the contracts and engagements with respect to these ships were in the single name of Nantes stated that Nantes purchased the ships without the knowledge of his partner ; and being desirous of concealing the transaction from, him registered them, in his own name ; except one, which was registered in the name of Janson, a clerk of the partnership ; but that the purchase and outfit, though not entered in the books of the partnership, were taken out of the partnership funds. In January 1796 Nantes finding it impossible to conceal the transaction from his partner gave him a list of the ships, in which he was engaged ; and in consequence of such, disclosure the ships were brought into the partership account ; and the disbursements on that account; were paid out of the partnership money on the 13th and 14th of January 1796 : but Mr. Chiswell being a Member of Parliament and liable to penalties, if the ships were employed in the service of Government, as some of them were, the registers, were continued in the names, in which they had been registered. The earnings of the ships were afterwards received by Muilman and Company ; and placed to the account of the ships in the partnership books ; and the subsequent expcnces were paid by Muilman and Company, and placed to the debit of the same accounts. They also stated bills drawn on, and paid by, the partnership in 1796 arid the beginning of 1797, on account of supplies for the ships by some of the Plaintiffs. Evidence was produced by the Plaintiffs, that Nantes acted as sole owner ; that he was made debtor for the provision supplied [741] by the Plaintiffs, Curtis, in 1796; that it is usual to debit the owners, if their nam.es are known ; that the captains are sometimes named ; hut generally not, where the owners are known. 1286 CURTIS V. PERRY 0 YES. JOT. 742. For the Defendants a clerk of the partnership proved, that he gave all the orders for the ships to the tradesmen in the name of Muilman and Company, as well prior to the 31st of January 1796, as afterwards. It was also proved, that all the ships were in the beginning of 1796 entered in the partnership books as joint property, and always considered so from that time. Receipts given by some of the Plaintiffs to the partnership were also produced. The Plaintiffs' books were offered in evidence ; containing entries, sometimes making Nantes debtor ; sometimes the ships and owners, without names ; sometimes the ships and captains : but that evidence was rejected. The Lord Chancellor directed an inquiry to be made at the Custom House, to see, who were considered the owners there : but it proved fruitless : the owners not being named in the entries or certificates granted ; and no oath...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tribe v Tribe
...J 310; 69 English Reports 1126. Coultwas v Swan (1870) WR 746. Crichton v Crichton (1895) 13 R 770. Curtis v Perry (1802) 6 Ves 739; 31 English Reports 1285. Davis v Otty (No 2) (1865) 35 Beav 208; 55 English Reports 875. Emery's Investments Trustees, Re sub nom Emery v Emery [1959] Ch 410;......
-
Tinsley v Milligan
...lie, where it falls'." 13There followed a consistent line of authority in which the principle has been applied. The cases include: Curtis v. Perry (1802) 6 Ves. 739; Ex parte Yallop (1808) 15 Ves. 60; Roberts v. Roberts Dan. 143; Groves v. Groves (1828) 3 Y. &J. 163; Childers v. Childers (1......
-
Webb v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police. ; Chief Constable of Merseyside Police v Porter and Another
...in this respect moved on since the ennunciation of what is referred to as Lord Eldon's wider principle as expressed, for instance, in Curtis v. Perry, 6 Ves. 739 at 746a, to the effect that equity will assist neither party to an illegal transaction. It was on this point that the minority in......
-
Tinsley v Milligan
...but would say, 'Let the estate lie, where it falls.'" 30In the following year Lord Eldon adopted this approach in Curtis v. Perry (1802) 6 Ves. Jun. 739. There ships belonging to two partners continued to be registered in the sole name of one of them. The other partner was a member of Parli......
-
The Recovery of Property Transferred for Illegal Purposes
...see Spry,The Principles of Equitable Remedies (Sydney: Law Book Co, 1990) pp 18–21.37 (1808) 15 Ves Jun 60; see also Curtis vPerry (1802) 6 Ves Jun 739.38 Yango Pastoral Co Pty Ltd vFirst Chicago Australia Ltd (1978) 139 CLR 410, 428–429, per Mason J.39 Some support for this interpretation ......