Eyre and Another v Archer
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 June 1864 |
| Date | 09 June 1864 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 143 E.R. 1277
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
[638] eyre and another v. archer. June 9th, 1864. A deed in the form given in Schedule D. to the Bankruptcy Act, 18GI (though duly executed and registered), cannot be pleaded in bar to an notion against the debtor by a creditor who has assented to and executed the same, for a debt in respect of which such creditor has so assented. This was an action for work and labour as attorneys, and for disbursements and moneys due upon accounts stated. Plea,-that, after the accruing of the causes of action, and after the coming into force of the Bankruptcy Act, 1861, and before suit, the defendant being indebted to divers persons in divers sums of money, and being unable to pay the same, the defendant and certain persons, to wit, one S. Freeman and one J. E. Chapman, as trustees as hereinafter mentioned, did make and enter into a certain deed in such form as is expressed in Schedule I), to the said act annexed, relating to the debts and liabilities of the defendant as such debtor, and the distribution, management, and winding-up of his estate, and his release therefrom, and which deed was made between the defendant and the said S. Freeman and J. E. Chapman on the behalf and with the assent of the plaintiffs and certain other creditors of the defendant, and which said deed the plaintiffs also undersigned as such creditors, and by which said deed the defendant conveyed all his estate and effects to the said S. Freeman and J. E, Chapman absolutely, to be applied and administered for the benefit of the creditors of the,1 defendant in like manner as if the defendant had been at the date of the said deed duly adjudged bankrupt: That the defendant did, after the accruing of the causes of action to which that plea was pleaded, and before the commencement of the suit, that is to say, on the 3rd of May, 1862, duly execute the said deed, and that his execution thereof was and is attested by an attorney and solicitor, and that the said trustees duly executed [639] the same, aud the majority in number representing throe fourths in value of the defendant's said creditors whose debts respectively amounted to 101. and upwards did in writing assent to or approve of the said deed, and the plaintiffs, being such creditors as aforesaid, did also undersign the said deed as such creditors of the defendant; and that twenty-eight days from the day of the execution of the said deed by the defendant, to wit, on the 30th oE May, 1862, the sumo was produced and left (having been first, arid the same was before the registration thereof, duly stumped 1278 EYRE V. ARCHER 16 C B. (N. S.) 640. with and bore such ordinary and ad valorem stamp-duties as in and by the said act were and are in that behalf required), at the oHice of the chief registrar in the said act in that behalf mentioned, for the purpose of being, and the same was within the said twenty-eight clays, to wit, on the day and year in that behalf before mentioned, duly registered according to the said act; and that, together with the said deed, there was delivered to the said chief registrar an affidavit by the defendant, as and being such debtor, that such a majority as in this behalf aforesaid had by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keyas against Elkins
...under sect. 197 to stay the proceedings, or after judgment to a Court of law to stay execution under sect. 198. In Eyre v. Ardier (16 C. B. N. S. 638) it was held that a deed in the form given by sect. 200 and Schedule D, assented to and executed by the required number of creditors, could n......
-
Garrod v Simpson
...their respective debts. Again, in Wells v. Hacon (5 B. & S. 196), the release was confined to parties to the deed. In Eyre v. Archer (16 C. B. N. S 638) the deed was a deed of assignment under the 200th section, and it contained no stipulation which could operate as a release. Suppose there......
-
Jones against Morris
...deed as the present is a bar, though it does not amount to an accord and satisfaction. [Blackburn J. That was cited in Eyre v. Archer (16 C. B. N. S. 638). Is there any case before the Bankruptcy Acts where a creditor under a trust deed of this kind was barred from maintaining an action at ......
-
The European Central Railway Company Ltd against Westeall
...of his creditors it contains no release by them to him. Such a deed is no answer to an action at law by a creditor; Eyre v. Archer (16 C. B. N. S. 638), Jones v. Monis (6 B. & S. 198), Clarice v. Williams (3 H. & C. 508; affirmed on error, Id. 1001). [Cockburn C.J. Is it not an answer in eq......