Dangerfield against Thomas
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 November 1838 |
| Date | 30 November 1838 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 1223
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 1 P. & D. 287. Referred to, The Wasp, 1867, L. R. 1 Ad. & E. 369.
[292] dangehfield against thomas. Friday, November 30th, 1838. Debt on bond. Plea: bankruptcy of plaintiff, fiat, &c., concluding that, "by reason of the premises, the assignees became entitled to the debt and cause of action:" Held, that the latter allegation was not traversable. The replication stated that plaintiff had, by indenture before his bankruptcy, assigned the bond to G. and E. as a security for a larger debt, and that the action was prosecuted for their benefit: Held, that no profert of the indenture was necessary. A money bond, assigned by the obligee to creditors to secure a debt of larger amount, does not pass to assignees under a fiat against him, although the assignment is expressed to be " for further security," and contains a proviso to defeat it on payment of the debt. [S. C. 1 P. & D. 287. Eeferred to, The Wasp, 1867, L. R. 1 Ad. & E. 369.] Debt on bond in the penal sum of 12501. Plea. That plaintiff, being a trader within the provisions of the Bankrupt Act, had become bankrupt; that a fiat issued against him ; that he was duly declared a bankrupt, and J. and K. were appointed assignees; " By reason of which premises, and by force of the statute, the said J. and K. became and were assignees of the estate and effects of the plaintiff, and entitled to the said debt or sum and cause of action in the declaration mentioned." Replication. That, before plaintiff became bankrupt, and before the issuing of the fiat, by a certain indenture between plaintiff of the one part, and J. Gardiner and M. Elgie of the other,-reciting that plaintiff was indebted to the said J. G. and M. E. in the sum of 15801., exclusive of costs, as appeared by a cognovit under the hand of plaintiff, and in a further sum of 801. for certain costs and charges, making together the sum of 16601., and reciting that defendant had become bound to plaintiff in the penal sum of 12501. conditioned for payment to plaintiff of 6251., with lawful interest (meaning thereby the said bond in the declaration mentioned), and reciting the inability of plaintiff to pay the said sum of 16601., and the agreement of plaintiff to assign to the said J. G. and M. E., and of the said J. G. and M. E. to accept, the aaid bond "as a further security " for the debt due to them,-plaintiff in pursuance thereof assigned to the said J. G. and [293] M. E. the said bond, with all principal and interest due, or to be due...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forth and Others v Stanton, Widow
...the debt so assigned did not pass under the commission. 4 T. R. 690, Hmeell v. M'lvers, S. P. 3 Bos. & Pull. 40, Carpenter v. Marnel. [9 A. & E. 292, Dangerfield v. Thomas. 1 P. & Dav. 287, S. C. 8 M. & W. 743, Parnham v. Hurst. See further 9 Bing. 372, Crowfoot v. Gurney. 2 M. & Scott, 473......
-
Bennet v Filkins
...and then, being mere matter of law, it is not traversable. And, in this point of view, the rule is fully sustained by modern authorities. 9 A. & E. 292, Dangerfield v. Thomas. 1 Perr. & D. 287, S. C. Therefore, if it were alleged that A. was in custody of the sheriff at the suit of B.; and ......
-
Trott v Smith, Executor of R Edwards, Deceased
...v. Kedey (1 T. R. 619), Sims v. Thomas (12 Ad. & E. 550; 4 P. & D. 233), Carpenter v. Marnell (3 Bos. & P. 40), Dangerjield v. Thomas (9 Ad. & E. 292; 1 P. & D. 287), Gardner v. timve (2 Sim. & Stu. 346), Parnham v. Hurst (8 M. & W. 743). It may be said that, because, on the non performance......
-
Drewe against Lainson and Salomons, Esquires
...writ. That, being [535] matter of law, should not be shewn by way of traverse; Com. Dig. Pleader (G, 5), Dangerfield v. Thomas (9 A. & E. 292), Pearson v. Rogers (9 A. & E. 303). In Halifax v. Chambers (4 M. & W. 662), the declaration stated that the defendants were tenants to plaintiff, an......