Ex parte Leonard Warrington John Simpson Leake, a Bankrupt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 March 1853 |
| Date | 23 March 1853 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 43 E.R. 64
BEFORE THE LORDS JUSTICES.
S. C. 22 L. J. Bk. 33; 17 Jur. 430; 1 W. R. 261. Followed, Thomas v. Cooper, 1854, 18 Jur. 688. Disapproved, Fussell v. Daniel, 1854, 10 Ex. Rep. 606; Langton v. Haynes, 1856, 1 H. & N. 366.
64 EX PARTE WABEINGTON $ BB 0. M. * 0. M9. [189] Ex parte leonard warrington. In the Matter of john simpson leake, a Bankrupt. Before the Lords Justices. Feb. 25, March 11, 23, 1863. [S. C. 22 L. J. Bk. 33; 17 Jur. 430; 1 W. R. 26 L Followed, Thomas v. Cooper, 1854, ISJur. 688. Disapproved, Fussell v. Daniel, 1854, 10 Ex. Rep. 606; Lm-gton v. Haynes, 1856, 1 H. & N. 366.] Advances made upon promissory notes not having more than twelve months to run, although further secured upon leaseholds by a contemporaneous agreement, Held to be within the protection of the 2 & 3 Viet. c. 27, s. 1. Held also that, even if this were not so, such of the promissory notes as had not more than three months to run were within the 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 98, which does not mention land, and that this enactment was not repealed or affected by the 2 & 3 Viet. c. 27. An affirmative statute is not repealed by a subsequent affirmative statute, unless the two cannot stand together. This was a petition by way of appeal from the rejection by Mr. Commissioner Perry of a proof ten-[160]-dered by the Petitioner for £2500, upon five several promissory notes for £500 each, dated respectively the 28th November 1850, the 18th December 1850, the 2d June 1851, the 15th July 1851, and the 24th September 1851. The notes in question were all signed by the bankrupt John Simpson Leake and by Charles Leake and made payable to the Petitioner. They all carried interest at £6 per cent, per annum, and they were made payable, aa to the note of the 28th November 1850, six weeks after date, as to the notes of the 15th July and 24th September 1851, three months after date, as to the note of the 18th December 1850, four months after date, and as to the note of the 2d June 1851 twelve months after date. The several sums made payable by these notes were in fact advanced by the Petitioner to the bankrupt; and whn the two first sums were respectively advanced it was agreed by the bankrupt further to secure them by the deposit of a policy of insurance, and by a mortgage of some salt works at Wheelock and Hassall, of whieh. the bankrupt was lessee under a Mr. Ackers. Accordingly, on the 28th of November 1850 (the day of the date of the first note), the following agreement was entered into between the Leakes and the bankrupt:- " Memorandum of agreement made the 28th day of November 1850, between John Simpson Leake, of Wheelock Hall, near Sandbank, in Cheshire, merchant, and Charles Leake, of Witney, in Oxfordshire, gentleman, of the one part, and Leonard Wanington, of Witney, aforesaid, of the other part. The said Leonard Warrington agrees to lend and advance to the said J. S. Leake and C. Leake £500 at interest, in consideration whereof the aaid J. S. Leake and C. Leake engage and agree forthwith to-deposit [161] with, and to assign and transfer to L. Warrington, a policy of insurance-of and upon the life of the said John Simpson Leake in the sum of £5000 granted by the Norwich Union Life and Fire Insurance Office; and also to grant to Mr. Warrington a mortgage security upon the salt works, lands, messuages, and premises-of the said John Simpson Leake in and upon Wheelock and Hassall adjoining; the security to be made at the cost of Leakes, and to be subject to the present subsisting incumbrances upon the said saltworks and premises. (Signed) John S. Leake, Charles Leake." At the back of this memorandum was the following note:-"Mr. Warrington engages not to part with or require payment of the note of hand for £500 and interest given by J. S. Leake and Charles Leake, within named, for that amount, without giving them two months' notice to pay the same." Although the above agreement in terms extended only to the first sum of £500, it was admitted by the Petitioner, in his examination, that the second sum of £500' was also lent upon the faith of it. In pursuance of the agreement, the policy (which was dated the 9th of December 185Q), was about the time of its date delivered by the bankrupt to the Petitioner ; and afterwards, by a deed dated the 19th of February 1851, the leases of the salt `3DEO.M. ftO.113. EX PARTE WASHINGTON 65 works and the policy were assigned by the bankrupt to the Petitioner by way of mortgage, for securing the sum of £2400 and interest at £6 per cent, per annum. This sum of £2400 waa made up of the two sums of £500 advanced upon the above notes, and of two other sums of £400 and £1000, in which the bankrupt had been previously indebted to the Petitioner. [162] The securities for the sums made payable by the first two notes having thus been perfected, the Petitioner afterwards agreed to advance the bankrupt the further sum of £1500; and on the 5th of May 1851 the following agreement was entered into in relation to the further advance :- "Memorandum of having arranged with Mr. Leonard Warrington for a further advance of £1500 at 6 per cent, interest, with a bonus of £300 in case the first year's profits are under £1500 upon the new part of the Whitehall Works, but £400 in case they are above that. Said advance to be made in the following manner, namely, £500 this present month...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bradshaw v McMullan
...199, at pp. 212, 213. (2) 14 Ch. D., at p. 441. (3) 3 App. C. 1004. (4) 6 Bingham, 653. (5) 3 M. & W. 240. (6) 10 Ex., at p. 606. (7) 3 De G. M. & G. 159. (7) 1 H. & N. 366. (8) 1 I. E. R. 311. (9) 9 I. E. R. 224. (1) 1 C. P. D. 145. (1) 24 L. R. Ir. 503. (2) 2 App. C. 439. (3) [1901] 2 I. ......
-
Clack v Holland
...Mr. Southgate, for the representatives of Mr. Clack. Mr. R. Palmer, in reply, cited Lane v. Horlodt (1 Drew. 587); Exparte Wwnington (3 De G. M. & G. 159); Jones v. Smith (1 Hare, 43; 1 Phill. 244); James v. Mice (1 Kay, 231), and referred to 57 Geo. 3, c. 99. the master of the rolls [Sir J......
-
Mahony v Wright and Others
...Rex v. DavisENR 1 Leach, C. C., 271. O'Flaherty v. M'Dowell 6 H. L. Cas. 142; S. C., 4 Jur., N. S., 33. Ex parte WarringtonENRUNK 3 De G., M. & G. 159, 171; S. C., 17 Jur. 430; 22 Law Jour., Bank., 33. Rex v. HaynesENR 4 M. & S. 214. Dore v. Gray T. R. 358, 365. Lyn v. Wyn Bridg. Rep.122. f......