Dearie and Others, Assignees of J. Hughesdon and A. Mackay, Bankrupts, v R and J. Henderson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 January 1849 |
| Date | 20 January 1849 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 137 E.R. 29
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
dearie and others, Assignees of J. Hughesdon and A. Mackay, Bankrupts, v. E. and J. henderson. Jan. 20, 1849. The plaintiffs, as assignees of H. and M., delivered a declaration, the first two counts being in trover for a ship and cargo, alleged in the first count to have been in the possession of H., and, in the second, as having been in the possession of the assignees. -The third count stated that H., before his bankruptcy, being sole owner of a ship, executed a deed-poll under seal, empowering the defendants to sell the ship, and that H. and M. sent the deed-poll to the defendants for the purpose of securing them in respect of the acceptance by them of certain bills of exchange drawn upon them by H. and M.; that the defendants received the deed-poll with full notice and for the purpose aforesaid; but that they refused to accept or to pay the bills; and afterwards^'sold the ship, under colour of the deed-poll, before the bankruptcy of H. and M.-The fourth count stated that H., before his bankruptcy, being sole owner of a ship, executed a deed-poll under seal, of the like tenor and effect as the deed-poll mentioned in the last preceding count; that H. and M., before either of them became bankrupt, wrote a letter to the defendants, instructing them not to sell the ship; that the last-mentioned deed-poll and letter were delivered to the defendants, who held the deed-poll subject to the instructions contained in the letter; yet that the defendants, before the bankruptcy of H. and M., and contrary to the terms of the letter, sold the last-mentioned ship by a bill of sale executed by the vendors before, but completed by the purchasers after, the bankruptcy of H. and M.:-A judge at chambers having made an order " that the plaintiffs elect between the first and third, and the second and fourth counts, or be at liberty to amend the first and second counts, by confining the same to the cargo,"-on the ground that the counts were apparently founded upon the same principal subject-matter of complaint, within 30 ' DEARIE V. HENDERSON 7C.B.72. the rule of Hilary term, 4 W. 4, r. 5,-the court declined to rescind or vary his order. The first count of the declaration in this case was in trover, for a ship and cargo in the possession of Joseph Hughesdon the younger, and alleged a conversion by the defendants before Hughesdon's bankruptcy. [72] The second count was also in trover, for a ship and cargo in the possession of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lakshmi v Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust
...Policy that had come into effect in September 2006 (referred to in this judgment as “HR2”) [CB 64] and in particular to clause 3. 7 [CB 71]. As a consequence, he said, of both the police request and clause 3.7 he did stay the investigation and on the 3 rd November 2006 he informed Dr L of t......