Farrar v Deflinne
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 August 1844 |
| Date | 23 August 1844 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 174 E.R. 945
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS, AND EXCHEQUER, AND ON THE NORTHERN AND WESTERN CIRCUITS.
August 22nd, 1844 kirkpatbick v tattersall (A bankrupt, after the issuing of the fiat against him, but before the granting of his certificate, promised in writing to pay a debt due by him before his bankruptcy : Held, tiat this promise did not revive the debt, so as to enable the creditor to sue the bankrupt thereon in an action of indebitatus assumpsit) [See p. 752, post ] Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered, and on an account stated Pleas-1st, non assumpsit, 2dly, that after the making of the said promises the defendant became a bankrupt within the true intent and meaning of the statutes then in force concerning bankrupts, and that the alleged causes of action accrued to the plaintiff before the defendant so became a bankrupt The plaintiff joined issue on the first plea, and replied to the second, alleging a promise hy the defendant, after his bankruptcy, to pay to the plaintiff the sums of money in the declaration mentioned ; whereupon issue was joined. It appeared that the defendant had become bankrupt subsequently to the accruing of the original debt in respect [578] of which this action was brought ; that his certificate was dated the 20th of February, and that it was allowed on the 13th of March, 1844. After the date of the fiat, however, and before the 20th of February, the defendant wrote to the plaintiff in the following terms .-" In consideration of your services, I agree to pay the debt due from me to you before my bankruptcy " , and it was contended, on behalf of the plaintiff, that this promise was a sufficient answer to the defendant's plea Knowles and Cowling, for the defendant, contended that it was not sufficient.- The words of the 121st section of the 6 Geo IV. c. 16, were " And be it enacted, that every bankrupt who shall have duly surrendered, and in all things conformed timself to the laws in force concerning bankrupts at the time of issuing the commission against him, shall be discharged from all debts due by him when he became bankrupt, and from all claims and demands hereby made provable under the commission, in case he shall obtain a certificate of such conformity so signed and allowed, and subject to such provisions as hereinafter directed " Then sect. 131 enacted, " That no bankrupt, after his certificate shall have been allowed under any present or future...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Tower Cabinet Company Ltd v Ingram
-
Re M'Manus a Bankrupt
...& Jam. 233. Ex parte Moore 2 Glyn & Jam. 166. Ex parte Ellis 2 Glyn & Jam. 312. Ex parte Grazebrook 2 D. & C. 186. Farrar v. DeflineENR 1 Car. & Kir. 580. Ex parte Carpenter Mont. & M'A. 1. 82 CHANCERY REPORTS. 1868. Banktey., tc. • Feb. 8. A was a dor. Tins was a meeting for the proo......