Elliot against Kendrick
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 November 1840 |
| Date | 03 November 1840 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 113 E.R. 938
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
S. C. 4 P. & D. 306; 9 D. P. C. 195; 1 Wol. P. C. 45. Referred to, Denston v. Ashton, 1869. L. R. 4 Q. B. 591. Explained, Cowell v. Taylor, 1885, 31 Ch. D. 38; White v. Butt, [1909] 1 K. B. 53.
elliot against kendrick. Tuesday, November 3d, 1840. Plaintiff assigned all his effecta to N., for the benefit of his creditors, with power to sue in his name; afterwards he became insolvent and also bankrupt, and had not obtained his certificate: and had no means of paying the costs of an action. N. having commenced an action in plaintiff's name, and without his authority (except under the assignment), the Court stayed the proceedings till N. should give the defendant security for costs. [S. C. 4 P. & D. 306; 9 D. P. C. 195; 1 Wol. P. C. 45. Eef erred to, Denston v. Ashtmi, 1869, L. E. 4 Q. B. 591. Explained, Cowell v. Taylor, 1885, 31 Ch. D. 38; White v. Butt, [1909] 1 K. B. 53.] Humfrey obtained a rule in last Hilary term, calling on Walter Nicol and David Scott to shew cause why they should not give security to the defendant for the costs in this cause (a)2. It appeared that, on 24th May 1837, plaintiff assigned all his estate and effects to Nicol and Scott, as trustees for the plaintiff's creditors, with power to sue in his name. Afterwards plaintiff was imprisoned, and petitioned the Insolvent Debtors' Court, and executed the assignment to the provisional assignee on 2d May 1838. On 4th January 1839 he became bankrupt; and an assignee under the fiat was afterwards chosen. Plaintiff [598] had not obtained his certificate. The debt on which the action was brought became due before 24th May 1837; and this action was in fact (a)1 See the authorities cited in note \z\ to Duppa v. Mayo, 1 Wins. Saund. 288 c. (5th ed.). (V) See, as to damages, Hodsoll v. Stallbi-ass, 11 A. & E. 301. (a)2 Other matters contained in the rule were abandoned by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Semler v Murphy
...action. 5 A nominal plaintiff is a men who is a plaintiff in name but who in truth sues for the benefit of another. In an early case, Elliot v. Kendrick (1840) 12 Adolphus & Ellis, page 597, a plaintiff assigned his estate to trustees for his creditors with power to sue in his name for his ......