Fowler v Down
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 May 1797 |
| Date | 26 May 1797 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 126 E.R. 769
IN THE COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER AND IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS
fowler . down. May 26th, 1797. If an order for the delivery of goods in the hands of a third person be given to an uncertificated bankrupt in payment of a debt accrued subsequent to his bankruptcy, he may maintain trover for them *. This was an action of trover brought by an uncertificated bankrupt. The^ Plaintiff had carried on business for some time, and in a considerable way eiace his bankruptcy, and had advanced several [45] sums of money to one Davidson, io part payment of which Davidson gave an order for delivering to the Plaintiff fifty barrels oi beef belonging to him, and then in the hands of the Defendant. The Defendant on demand refused to deliver up the beef so assigned by Davidson to the Plaintiff, on which this action was brought; and the cause being tried before Eyre Ch. J. at Guildhall at the Sittings in this terra, a verdict was found for the Plaintiff with liberty to the Defendant to move to set it aside and enter a nonsuit. Shepherd Serjt. having previously obtained a rule nisi for the above purpose, was this day called upon by the Court to begin in support of it. (a) Patrick & Pepper's case, at O. B. Session, February 1783, before Buller J. Leach, 244. * Vide Webb v. Fox, 7 T. E. 391. Sekhardi v. Wilson, 8 T. E. 140. Kitchen*. Bartsch, 7 East, 53-60. Kinnecer v. Tarrant, 15 East, 622, 629. Carpenter v. Afarnell, 3 B. & P. 40. Clark v. Calvert, 8 Taunt. 742. Hull v. Pickersgill, 1 B. & B. 282. Sampson ?. Burtm, 2 B. & B. 89. Drayton v. Dale, 2 B. & C. 293. Card v. Hope, 2B. &C. 661,667. C. P. IV.-25 770 FOWLER V. DOWN 1 BOS. & POL- 48, Shepherd. The inference to be drawn from Evans v. Mann, Cowp. 569, and Martyn v. O'Hofa, Cowp. 823, is, that property acquired by a bankrupt after the assignment becomes the property of bia assignees : for in those cases there was no new assignment, In the first of them it was decided, that if a bankrupt sell goods previous to his bankruptcy, the assignees must sue the vendees as assignees: but where the goods are acquired antf sold subsequent to the bankruptcy, they may sue in their own names. Though 13 Eliz. c. 7, s. 11, speaking of personal as well as real property coming to the bankrupt, at any time before payment of his debts, directs, that " they shall be bargained, sold, extended, delivered, and used for and towards the payment of the said creditors;" yet the words " bargained and sold," can only apply to such property as does bo! usually pass without conveyance: and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Herbert against Sayer
...an uncertificated bankrupt to after acquired property, before the recent statutes. The leading case on this subject is Fowler v. Down (1 Bos. & Pul. 44), where it was laid down that the bankrupt has a right to such property against every body but the assignees, and that it was not competent......
-
George Frederick Mowlds, Attorney, v Robert Lynch Power
...v. WilkinsonENR 2 Doug. 671. Dance v. WyattENRUNK 6 Bing. 486; S. C. 4 Moo. & P. 201. Webb v. FoxENR 7 T. R. 391. Fowler v. DownENR 1 Bos. & P. 44. Silk v. OsbornENR 1 Esp. N. P. 140. Evans v. BrownENR 1 Esp. N. P. 169. Laroche v. WakemanENR 1 Peake, N. P. 190. Taylor v. Buchanan 4 B.& C. 4......
-
John Card and David Cannan against William Hope
...Chippendale v. Tomlinson (1 Cooke's B. Laws, 406), Silk v. Osborn (1 Esp. N. P. C. 140), Evans v. Brmm (1 Esp. 170), Fowler v. Down (1 Bos. & Pul. 44), Well v. Fox (7 T. E. 391), Flood v. Finlay (2 Ball. & Beatty, 13), Clark, v. Cakert (8 Taunt, 742), Weihemll v.' Geering (12 Ves. 504), and......