Frederick Hatton against Henry English and George Williams
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 January 1857 |
| Date | 12 January 1857 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 119 E.R. 1183
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 26 L. J. Q. B. 161; 3 Jur. N. S. 294. Adopted, Brodrick v. Scale, 1871, L. R. 6 C. P. 102.
[94] frederick hatton against henry english and george williams. Saturday, January 12th, 1857. Under stat. 17 & 18 Viet. c. 36, s. 1, a bill of sale is void against creditors unless a description of the residence and occupation of the person granting it be filed along with the bill of sale. It is not sufficient that the bill of sale, which is filed, itself contains a description of his residence and occupation. [S. C. 26 L. J. Q. B. 161; 3 Jur. N. S. 294. Adopted, Brodriek v. Scale, 1871, L. R. 6 C. P. 102.] Issue, under which plaintiff affirmed and defendants denied that certain goods seized by the sheriff of Middlesex, under a fi. fa. against the goods of Joseph Hare, at the suit of defendants, were, at the time of the delivery of the writ, the goods of the plaintiff. On the trial, before Lord Campbell C.J., at the Sittings at Westminster after last Term, it appe*red that the writ was delivered on 24th October 1856. The execution debtor, Joseph Hare, had, on 18th July 1856, executed a bill of sale conveying the goods in question to the plaintiff by way of security. This bill of sale was, within twenty one days, filed along with an affidavit of the time when it was executed. The bill of gale was expressed to be made between "Joseph Hare of No. 11, Clarges Street, Piccadilly, in the county of Middlesex, lodging house keeper, of the one part," and the plaintiff of the other ; but the affidavit accompanying it contained no description of the occupation of Joseph Hare; nor was there any other description of his occupation filed, except that in the bill of sale itself. It was objected that the provisions of Btat. 17 & 18 Viet. c. 36, g. 1, had not been complied with. The Lord Chief Justice, on this objection, directed a verdict for the defendants, with leave to move to enter a verdict for the plaintiff. [95] Montagu Chambers, in the ensuing term moved for a rule nisi pursuant to the leave reserved. The description of the occupatioti here given is sufficient; the case is not like that of Allen v. Thompson (1 H. & N. 15), where no occupation at all was stated. The object of the Legislature was to furnish the officer materials for making the proper entries in the book to be kept under sect. 3. [Lord Campbell C.J. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trousdale and Another v Sheppard and Another
...Bl. 549. Pickard v. BretzENR 5 H. & N. 9. Dryden v. HopeUNK 3 L. T., N. S., 280. Tutton v. SanonerENR 3 H. & N. 280. Hutton v. EnglishENR 7 El. & Bl. 94. 370 COMMON LAW REPORTS. E. T. 1862. Queen's Bench TROUSDALE and another v. SHEPPARD Fla another. Tins was an interpleader issue under the......
-
Fonblanque and Others v Lee
...Pleas. FONBLANQUE and others and LEE. Hatton v. EnglishENR 7 El. & Bl. 94. Allen v. ThompsonENR 1 H. & N. 15. Twyne's caseUNK 1 Sm. L. C. 1. In re O'Connor 1 Ir. Jur., N. S., 198. Latimer v. BatsonENR 4 B. & C. 652. Hubbard v. JohnstoneENR 3 Taunt. 220. In re Arthur O'Connor 1 Ir. Jur., N. ......
-
Harris v O'Loghlen. Freeman v O'Loghlen. Stuart v O'Loghlen
...HARRIS and O'LOGHLEN. FREEMAN and O'LOGHLEN. STUART and O'LOGHLEN. M'Dowell v. Wheatly 7 Ir C. L. R. 562. Hatton v. EnglishENR 7 E. & B. 94. Thorp v. BrowneUNK 16 Ir. Ch. Rep. 365; on appeal — L. R. 2 H. L. 220. Slator v. SlatorUNK 16 Ir. Ch. Rep. 488. In re Fitzgerald (Francis)UNK 11 Ir. C......
-
Pickard v Bretz
...sale, but only of the person it does not say "the said John Bretz so described or truly described in the bill of sale." Nation v English (7 E & B 94) is an express authority that it is not sufficient that the bill of sale contains a description of the residence and occupation, but there mus......