Ferguson and Another, Assignees v Mitchell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1835 |
| Date | 01 January 1835 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 291
EXCHEQUER OF PLEAS.
S. C. 1 Tyr. & G. 179; 4 Dowl. P. C. 513; 1 Gale, 346; 5 L. J. Ex. 68. Explained Boydell v. Jones, 1838, 4 M. & M. 451; 1 H. & H. 408; 7 Dowl. P. C. 210.
[687] fekguson and another, Assignees v. mitchell. Exch. of Pleas. 18.35. -In debt by assignees of an insolvent or bankrupt, it need not be stated that the plaintiff's sue "as assignees;" it is enough if it sufficiently appears that they are assignees.-Assignees may declare in the debet and detiuet, and the omission of the querifcur is immaterial. -The declaration stated, that the defendant was indebted to tbe insolvent, before he subscribed his petition, or executed the assignment of his estate under' the Insolvent Act, for goods sold and delivered by him, before he became insolvent:-Held, a sufficiently certain allegation of the time when the debt accrued.-A count, stating that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff' on an account stated between them, is bad, on special demurrer, for want of an allegation of the time when the account was stated. It should be "on an account then stated between them."-If a demurrer he pleaded to the whole of a declaration consisting of several counts, and any one count is good, the demurrer is too large, and the plaintiff' is entitled to judgment. [. C. I Tyr. &, U. 179 ; 4 Dowl. P. C. 513; 1 Gale, 346 ; 5 L. J. Ex. 68. Explained, Baydell v. Jmes, 1838, 4 M. & W. 451; 1 H. & H. 408; 7 Dowl. f. C. 210.] Debt by the plaintiffs, assignees of J. W. Bromley, an insolvent debtor, for goods sold and delivered by the insolvent to the defendant, and on an account stated between them. The declaration stated, that the defendant was summoned to ai swer the plaintiff's, assignees as aforesaid, and that they demanded of him 401., which he owed to and unjustly detained from them ; that he was indebted to the said if. W. Bromley, before he subscribed his petition for his discharge from imprisonment, and before he executed the conveyance and assignment of his estate and effects according to the statute, for goods sold and delivered by the said .). W. Bromley, before he became insolvent, to the defendant, at his request, and for money found to be due from the defendant to the said J. W. Bromley on an account stated between them ; which several monies were to be paid by the defendant to the said J. W. Bromley, before he became insolvent, on request: and concluded, that an action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holford against Bailey
...the sum of 77501.," in bill for debt, were held to be superfluous; Lord v. Houstoivn (11 East, 62), recognized in Ferguson v. Mitchell (2 C. M. & R. 687, 689; Tyrwh. & Gr. 179, 181), where Parke B. said that, since the new rules, no recital of the writ was necessary in making up the issue. ......
-
Wilson v Brereton
...for the (a) 2 Smith, L. C. 30 ; S. C. 1 T. R. 748. (b) 11 Pri. 235. (c) 7 Ad. & E. 557. (d) 14 East, 291. (e) 9 Ad. & E. 548. (f) 2 Cr. M.& R. 687. (g) 11 Ad. & E. 720. (h) 3 P. & Dalt. 567; S. C, 11 Ad, & CASES AT LAW. 469 Jury ; Leigh, N. P. 87 ; Robinson v. Hindman (a). This having been ......
-
Cochrane v Fitzpatrick
...Mitchell Long. & T. 275. Hayter v. MoateENR 2 M. & W. 56. Barnes v. Keily 1 Cr. & Dix, 358. Ferguson v. MitchelENR 4 D. P. C. 521; S. C. 2 C. M. & R. 687. Harding v. Hibel 4 Tyr. 314. Mills v. Banfield 1 J. & Sy. 647. Wade v. Croker 6 Ir. Law Rep. 514. Falcon v. BennENR 1 G. & Dav. 646. Gal......