Ex parte Charles Benjamin Gorely John Barker, a Bankrupt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 November 1864 |
| Date | 10 November 1864 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 46 E.R. 1003
BEFORE THE LORD CHANCELLOR LORD WESTBURY.
S. C. 34 L. J. Bk. 1; 11 L. T. 319; 10 Jur. (N. S.), 1085; 13 W. R. 60. See Rayner v. Preston, 1880, 14 Ch. D. 300; Westminster Fire Office v. Glasgow Provident Society, 1888, 13 App. Cas. 713.
£477] Ex parte charles benjamin gorely. In the Matter of john barker, a Bankrupt. Before the Lord Chancellor Lord Westbury. Nov. 9, 10, 1864. j[S. C. 34 L. J. Bk. 1 ; 11 L. T. 319; 10 Jur. (N. S.), 1085; 13 W. R. 60. See Rayner v. Preston, 1880, 14 Ch. D. 300; Westminster Fire Office v. Glasgow Provident Society, 1888, 13 App. Caa. 713.] 'The 83d section of the 14 Geo. 3, c. 78, is of universal and not of locally circumscribed application, but only applies to insurance moneys upon houses and buildings. Moneys paid in respect of the insurance of trade fixtures are not within its application. This was an appeal by Charles Benjamin Gorely, the owner of certain property at Dover, of which the bankrupt John Barker was the lessee, and by certain mortgagees òof the lease, from the decision of Mr. Commissioner Goulburn on certain questions submitted to the Court upon a special case under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, 1861, a. 56. The precise terms of these questions it is not necessary for the purposes of this report to refer to in detail. It is sufficient to say that they had reference to the mode in which, as between the various parties to the appeal, were to be applied òcertain moneys which had been paid by certain insurance companies partly in respect of the demised property which had been burnt down, and partly in respect of certain trade fixtures upon the property which had been burnt with it, such fixtures having been provided by the bankrupt, and he being, under one of the covenants in his lease, Abound to deliver them up to the lessor on the determination of the lease. 1004 EX PARTE QORELY 4 DE 0. J. & S. 8. The main question argued was upon the construction of the preamble to and the 83d section of thestat. 14 Geo. 3, c. 78, which are respectively set out below,(l) and the [478] stat. 7 & 8 Viet. c. 84, and 18 & 19 Viet. c. 122, so far as they respectively except from the general repeal of the statute of 14 Geo. 3 the 83d section thereof. [479] Mr. F. Meadows White, for the Appellants, referring to stat. 12 Geo. 3, c. 73, s. 34, and Filliter v. Phippard (11 Q. B. 347); Simpson v. The Scottish Union Insurance Company (1 H. & M. 618), and Richards v. Easto (15 M. & W. 244), contended that, notwithstanding the locality of the property, they were entitled to the benefit of the stat. 14 Geo. 3, c. 78, s. 83, which ho argued was of universal and not of locally circumscribed application, and thereunder to have the whole of the moneys in dispute laid out in rebuilding the property. Mr. Holl, for the Respondents...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
ENGLISH STATUTES IN SINGAPORE COURTS
...c.22. 377 8 Geo. II c.24. 378 24 Geo. II c.23. 379 14 Geo. III c.48. 380 14 Geo. III c.78. 381 See Ex p. Gorley(1864) 4 De G.J. & Sm. 477: 46 E.R. 1003. 382“Why the History of English Law is Not Written” in Fisher, H.A.L. (ed.), Collected Papers of Frederick William Maitland, Vol.1 (1911, r......