Dean and Others v McGhie and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 October 1826 |
| Date | 28 October 1826 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 172 E.R. 175
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Subsequent proceedings with annotations, 4 Bing 45
Oct 28th, 1826. dean and others v. m'ghie and another (If the brokers to a mortgagee of a ship, who has taken possession, receive the freight, it is not recoverable from them in an action of assumpsit by the assignees of the mortgagor (he having become bankrupt), if a sum equal in amount has been applied by the mortgagee to the payment of the seamens' wages ) [Subsequent proceedings with annotations, 4 Bing 45 ] Assumpsit. The plaintiffs were the assignees of a bankrupt named Prince, and the defendants were the brokers of a person named Chance. The action was brought to recover a sum of money, which had been paid to the defendants as the freight oE a ship called the " Rosalind " A clerk from the Custom House produced the books kept there, relating to the ownership of vessels, from which it appeared, that on the 29th of December, 1824, the bankrupt, Prince, was the owner of the " Rosalind " , and he proved, that on the 3d of March, 1826, an indorsement was made on the register of a transfer from Prince to Chance of the whole of the ship, by a bill of sale by way of mortgage, dated the 16th of November, 1825. The indorsement was not made earlier, because the ship was away on a voyage , but the witness stated, that the bill of sale was shewn to him on the 25th of November, 1825 Prince [388] became bankrupt on the 4th of February, 1826. The freight was paid to the defendants in the months of March and June, 1826, and they paid it over to their principal, Chance, by whom they were indemnified, hut (a) Anmiymous, Pas 5 W. & M. C B. Salkeld, 280 A parol promise was made to pay a sum of money on the return of a certain ship. The ship did not return till two years after the promise. All the Judges held, that the promise was good, and not within the Statute of Frauds, saying, that it only extended to such promises, where, by the express appointment of the party, the thing was not to be performed within a year, and that, by possibihty, the return of the ship might have been within the year, though, by accident, it happened to have been delayed beyond it This case was cited and approved by Mr. Justice Wilrnot, in a case of Fenton v Embler^, executor of May, reported in 3 Burr. 1278 In that case, the Court of King's Bench held, that the Statute did not apply to a parol promise by a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dean and Another, Assignees of Prince (A Bankrupt) v McGhie and Another
...Dean and Another, Assignees of Prince, a Bankrupt and M'Ghie and Another S. C. 12 Moore, 185; 5 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 44: at Nisi Prius, 2 Car. & P. 387. [4fl] dean and another, Assignees of Prince, a Bankrupt, v. M'GrHiE and another. Nov. 25, 1826. [S. C. 12 Moore, 185; 5 L. J. C. P, (0, S.)......