Edwards v The Queen
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 February 1854 |
| Date | 18 February 1854 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 156 E.R. 268
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 23 L J. Ex. 165; 2 C L R 590; 18 Jur. 384, 2 W R 333 Followed, Wright v. Mill, 1859, 4 H. & N. 488. Applied, Marshall v James, 1874, L R. 9 C. P. 702, Migoth v. Colvill, 1878, 4 C P D 234 affirmed, 4 C P. D 233, Clarke v Bradlaugh, 1881, 7 Q. B. D. 153 affirmed, 8 Q. B D 63
[628] edwards o. regixam. Feb. 18, 1854.-Held, in the Exchequer Chamber (affirming the judgment of the Court of Exchequer), that where an adjudication in bankruptcy and appointment of an official assignee take place at an earlier period of the same clay on which a writ of extent is issued against the bankrupt for a Crown debt, the title of the Crown will prevail. [S. C. 23 L J. Ex. 165; '2 C L R 590; 18 Jui. J84, 2 W R .VW Followed, Wiight v. Mill*, 1859, 4 H. & N. 488. Applied, Maitkall v Jamt*, 1874, L R. 9 C. P. 702 , Mtgotti v. C'olvtll, 1878, 4 C P D 234 affirmed, 4 C P. D 2.3,3, Ulatke v Bnidlaugh, 1881, 7 Q. B. D. 153 affirmed, 8 Q. B D 63 ] Error on the judgment of the Court of Exchequer in the case of Ilegtna v Edtutich (ante, p. 32). The case was argued (b) (Feb. 1) by Eramwell for the plaintitt in error (the defendant below), and by Watson for the Crown. The arguments were in substance the same as those in the Court below. The counsel for the plaintitt in error cited the following additional authorities. Claytons case, (5 Rep 1), Roe d ll'iantjluim v tleisty (3 Wils 274), Watson on Sheriffs, p. 362, 2nd ed., Tidd'a Prac. 1000 /Ticld's Forms, pp 393, 394 ; Plowd. 320 ; West on Extents, pp. 31, 58 The Counsel for the Crown cited the following: Wydoun's case (14 Ves. 87). Watson on Sheriffs, App., p. 499, 2nd ed ; Atloi ney-Gentt al v. Bnant (15 M & W 185), BoucliKi v. //'Wm/t (Cro Eliz. 440,) J [''any/aid awl tiexton'n ca.se (1 Leon. 304), Sntalcwnb v BiuLiiu/htim (5 Mod 376); Vmei's Abiidg. tit. "Teste," (B ), Com. Dig. tit "Dette" (G '*) , Plowd. 264 a ; PtufitbbV Annan (9 Dowl 828). Gilb on Executions, p. 15 cut. adv. vult. The judgment of the Court was now delivered by COLERIDGE, J. This was a demurrer to a replication , but that being admitted to be bad, the question 111 the cause arises upon the plea, \vhich will he found in the report of the case in the Court below, 9 Exch p 32 , and the question in this, whether the appointment of an official assignee, which, by 12 & 1.3 Viet c. 106, h 141, ipso [62&] facto operates to transfer the personal estate of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holley v AG
... ... 835 ... Jones v AG (12th April, 2000) Jersey Unreported ... Smith (Cleon) v The Queen (2000) UK PC 27 ... Sawoniuk [2000] Cr.L.R. 506 ... Advocate J.C. Gollop for the ... ...
-
Re Seaford, decd
...judgment relates back only to the earliest moment of the day on which it is entered. The rule has been stated to be a rule of law; see Edwards v. The Queen, (1854) 9 Exchequer Reports 638; Wright v. Mills (1859) 4 Hurlstone & Norman 488. In the former case it was said by Mr. Justice Colerid......
-
Re Palmer, decd. (A Debtor)
...v Bradlaugh (1881) 8 QBD 63. Dennis (A Bankrupt), Re[1993] 1 FCR 941; [1993] Ch 72; [1992] 3 WLR 204; [1992] 3 All ER 436. Edwards v Reg (1854) 9 Ex 628. McKiernon v Chief Adjudication Officer (1989) The Times, 1 November. Raymond v Honey [1983] 1 AC 1; [1982] 2 WLR 465; [1982] 1 All ER 756......
-
Lewis v Australian Capital Territory
...744 Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 Eastman v Director of Public Prosecutions [2003] HCA 28 ; 214 CLR 318 Edwards v The Queen (1854) 9 Exch 628 Fernando v Commonwealth [2014] FCAFC 181 ; 231 FCR 251 Fingleton v The Queen [2005] HCA 34 ; 227 CLR 166 Flynn v The King (1949) 79 CLR 1 F......