Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

Farrar v Deflinne

English Reports Nominate Series Cited in 2 Precedent Map Related
JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date23 August 1844
Date23 August 1844
CourtCourt 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.

Farrar
and
Deflinne

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Tower Cabinet Company Ltd v Ingram
    • United Kingdom
    • King's Bench Division
    • Invalid date
  • Re M'Manus a Bankrupt
    • Ireland
    • Court of Bankruptcy and Insolvency (Ireland)
    • 8 February 1858
    ...& 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......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT