Garland v Carlisle
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 June 1837 |
| Date | 27 June 1837 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 132 E.R. 690
IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
S. C. 11 Bligh (N. S.), 421; 6 E. R. 386; 4 Cl. & F. 693; 7 E. R. 263 (with note); 3 Mee. & W. 152; 4 Scott, 587.
[7] (!n the house or lords.) g-abland v. carlisle. June 27, 1837. [S. C. 11 Bligh (N. S.), 421; 6 E. E. 386; 4 Cl. & F. 693; 7 E. E. 263 (with note); 3 Mee. & W. 152 ; 4 Scott, 587.] A sheriff who levies execution on the goods of a Defendant, who becomes bankrupt on an act of bankruptcy committed before the execution, is liable in trover to the assignees of the bankrupt, notwithstanding he has no notice of the act of bankruptcy. * Upon error from the Common Pleas, the judgments of that Court and of the Exchequer Chamber, in this cause (a), were affirmed by the House of Lords, after argument, in conformity with the opinions of the Judges delivered in the House : Lord Denman C. J., Bolland B., and Vaughan J., dissentientibus. The opinions of the Judges were given at great length, and would occupy more than a number of these reports; the reporter, therefore, has abstained from printing them, the point decided being in effect the same as that determined by Balme v. Hutton (9 Bingh. 471), confirming the principle established by Cooper v. Chitty (1 Burr. 20), Lazarus v. Waithman (5 B. M. 313), Price v. Helyar (4 Bingh. 597), Carlisle v. Garland (7 Bingh. 298), Potter v. Starkie (Selw. N. P. 1431. 2 M. & S. 260), WyaM v. Blades (3 Campb. 396), Lee v. Lopez (15 East, 239), and Dillon v. Langley (2 B. & Aid. 131). Sir F. Pollock and Sir W. Follett for the Plaintiff in error. Bompas Serjt. and Ball for the Defendant in error. (a) See 7 Bingh. 298, and 10 Bingh. 452. Same case, 5 M. & P. 105; 2 M. & Scott, 24 ; 2 C. & M. 31; 3 Tyr. 705.
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 1095
IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
S. C. 4 Cl. & F. 693; 11 Bli. N. S. 421; 4 Bing. N. C. 7; 4 Scott, 587. Considered, Thorpe v. Stallwood, 1843, 5 M. & G. 760; 6 Scott, N. R. 715; 1 D. & L. 24. Approved, Hollins v. Fowler, 1875, L. R. 7 H. L. 764.
[152] in the house of lords. garland v. carlisle. 1837.-A sheriff who seizes and sells the gooda of a bankrupt under a h'. fa., before commission issued, but after an act of Iwnkruptcy, without notice of the act of bankruptcy, is liable in trover to the assignees. [S. C. 4 Cl. & F. 69.'); 11 Bli. N. S. 421 ; 4 Bing. N. C. 7 ; 4 Scott, 587...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- SSTKR Karuppan Chettiar; Tan Teng
-
Wilbraham v Snow
...a secret act of bankruptcy, was liable in trover. 1 Cr. & M. 262, Balme, v. Hutton. 2 Cr. & M. 31, Garland v. Carlisle. 4 Scott, 587. 4 Bing. N. C. 7, S. C. in Dom. Proc. However, by stat. 6 Geo. 4, c. 16, s. 81, executions levied two calendar months previous to a commission being sued out ......
- Federated Saw Mill Etc Employees of Australasia v James Moore & Son Pty Ltd
-
Ex parte Sir Robert John Harvey, Anthony Hudson, and Robert John Harvey Harvey Edward Blakely, a Bankrupt. ex parte Thomas Osborne Springfield and Another
...against third persons, is relieved by the 228th section. 756 EX PABTE HARVEY tDE 0, M. & 0. 890. They referred to Garland v. Carlisle (4 Bing. N. C. 7; 2 Moo. & S. 24; 10 Bing. 452 ; 3 M. & W. 152); Button v. Morrison (17 Ves. 193); Simpson, v. Sikes (6 Mau. & S. 295); Botcherbyv. Lancaster......