Gleadon v Tinkler and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 July 1817 |
| Date | 19 July 1817 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 348
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
348 GLEADON V. TINKLER HOLT 688. [586] York Summer Assizes, 57 Geo. III. [1817]. July 19, 1817. gleadon v. tinkler and others. (A. B. and C. are part-owners in a ship. A. directs B. and C. not to order any repairs in their joint names, and informs them that he will no longer consider them as Pewtress, 4 Burr 2477, where a trader made an absolute sale of goods, but at prime cost, it was held to be a fraudulent sale ; perhaps a fraudulent return of goods, which, having come into the stock of the bankrupt, were equitably divisible amongst his whole creditors. So, where the bankrupt indorsed and sent a promissory note, by the post, to a creditor, in contemplation of bankruptcy, the assignees were held entitled to the note. Alderson v. Temple, 2235. But where the preference is consequential, that is to say, is not directly intended by the bankrupt, but only incidentally becomes such, in this case, as the free will of the bankrupt is wanting, it will not be held a fraudulent [580] preference Thus, in Harmon v. Fisher, above cited, Lord Mansfield said, that if a preference were only consequential, the case might be different ; as if a payment were made, or an act done by a trader, in pursuance of a private agreement As in the following case - A,, whilst he was solvent and resident at Calcutta, directed B. at Bombay, to transmit certain proceeds to C in England, who acted as the agent of A , under a power of attorney, and was in the habit of accepting bills for him. The proceeds were remitted by B to C. after an act of bankruptcy committed by A But Lord Ellen-borough held, that as the remittance was made in pursuance of an order given by A. whilst he was solvent, and without fraud, C was entitled to retain the amount for his balance. Jamteson v Hodson, 1 Starkie, 150. But in a case where bankers had fraudulently sold out stock which belonged to a customer, but stood in their names, and applied the proceeds to their own use, and whilst they remained solvent wrapped up certain bonds belonging to them in an envelope, inscribed with the customer's name, and enclosed a memorandum, stating that they had deposited the bonds with him as a collateral security for his stock, which they promised to replace : they then deposited the parcel amongst securities belonging to other persons who dealt with them, but did not give any information of the circumstances to the customer, until the evening before their bankruptcy, wheft they sent him the parcel with the bonds, saying, they must stop payment next morning; Lord Ellenboromgh, in this case, held, that the customer could not retain the bonds against the assignees of the bankrupts ; and the Court of King's Bench afterwards confirmed his direction Wils&n v. Bal/our, 2 Campb 599 The reason of this case is evident upon the principles above stated. For, as a claim of the highest degree upon the part of the creditor could not justify such preference ; so neither, a jortion, would the strongest honourable obligation of the trader. He could not amend his own fraud at the expence of his general creditors But, where a trader obtained bills of exchange from the defendant upon a fraudulent...
To continue reading
Request your trial