Eckhardt and Others against Wilson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 February 1799 |
| Date | 05 February 1799 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 101 E.R. 1311
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
ST. B. Ml. ECKHARDT V.WILSON 1311 eckhakdt and others against wilson. Tuesday, Feb. 5th, 1799. To assumpsit by several partners, the defendant may plead in bar the bankruptcy of one of them. If partners by deed assign all their partnership effects, &c. to trustees for the benefit of their creditors, and some of the separate creditors of one partner do not assent to it, the assignment is fraudulent and void. [4 East, 230.] This was an action upon promises; to which the defendant pleaded, in bar, the bankruptcy of A. G. Eckhardt, one of the plaintiffs, and an assignment under it, of all his debts and effects, for the benefit of his creditors. The plaintiffs replied, that, before the bankruptcy of the said A. G. Eckhardt, he, with the other plaintiffs, who were partners in trade, by a deed of assignment, dated the llth of March 1796, after reciting that they were indebted, and were unable to discharge their debts and carry on their trade, assigned to certain trustees all their stock in trade, debts, and effects. for the benefit of all their creditors who should execute the said deed, with a power of attorney to the trustees to sue for and recover debts, &c.; averring that the names of the plaintiffs were only used for and in behalf of the trustees, and to enable them to receive the debt due from the defendant to them, under the said deed of assignment. To this the defendant rejoined, that the bankrupt, at the time of executing the said deed of assignment, and his bankruptcy, was indebted to several persons who did not execute that deed, that their debts are unpaid, and that they have sought relief under the commission of bankrupt issued against A. G. Eckhardt; wherefore the deed of assignment mentioned in the replication is void as to A. G. Eckhardt's share in the partner-[141]-ship debts and effects, and the deed of assignment made under the commission of bankrupt, is in full force, &c. The plaintiffs demurred generally to this rejoinder. Lawes in support of the demurrer. First, the plea itself cannot be supported. The reasoning in the cases of Fowler v. Dunn (a) and Webb v. Fox(b), where it was holden that an uncertificated bankrupt might maintain trover for goods acquired by him after his bankruptcy, applies to the present case, and shews that this action may be supported by the four partners, notwithstanding the bankruptcy of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buck against Lee
...in Winch v. Keeley (1 T. R. 619 (1787)); only a prima facie assignment, antecedent to the bankruptcy, was shewn. In Eckhardt v. Wilson (8 T. R. 140), there was no averment of notice, and no objection was taken to the omission. In Carpenter v. Marnell (3 B. & P. 40), it was held that where a......
-
Tappenden, Favene, Miller, Crallan, and Milllson, Assignees of Blinkhorn and Masgrave, Bankrupts, against Burgess
... ... petition of a creditor who had not concurred in such fraudulent deed, and who, together with-others who had so concurred, was chosen assignee : Held that it was no objection to an action brought by ... It was long ago settled in Ha/rman\. Fishar(a), and since in Bamford v. Baron (5), and Eckhardt v. Wilson (c), that a deed of assignment by a trader of all his effects, though for the benefit of ... ...