Hamilton v Bell and Another, Assignees of E Bevin, a Bankrupt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 November 1854 |
| Date | 18 November 1854 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 156 E.R. 554
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S c. 3 c. L r 308, 24 l j ex 4 j; 18 jur 1109; 3 w e 62 approved, in le coustan; ex p'i'iu watkms, 1873, l r 8 ch ap 520 ftefeired to, reynold* v. Bowky, 1866, l r 2 q, b 47, expaite lovermg, in /e janet, 1874, 9 ch ap. 632, hi re bell, ex, parte clatke, 1877, 47 l. J. Bky. 35, in te watwn & co., ex parte athn, [1904] 2kb 757.
545] hamilton v. bell and another, Assignees of E. Bevm, a Bankrupt. Nov. 18, 1854.-Goods of a third party in the possession of a bankrupt at the time of his bankruptcy, do not pass to his assignees under the 125th sect, of the 10 EX. 546. HAMILTON V. BELL 555 Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act, 12 & 13 Viet. c. 106, unless the goods are in the bankrupt's possession under such circumstances as make him the reputed owner of them, and have also been left in his possession, order, and disposition by the consent and permission of the true owner improperly, under circumstances calculated to enable the tradei to obtain false credit by the possession of the goods.-The question of reputed ownership, within the meaning of this section, is one purely of fact.-The plaintiff purchased some clocks of a. London tiades-man, who kept a shop, in which were exposed for sale clocks and watches. A pOLtion of the tradesman's business was to clean and repair clocks, and such as were sent to him for that purpose stood amongst those in the shop which were for sale. The plaintiff left the clocks which he had purchased with the tradesman, with directions that they were to be sent to him when they had been cleaned and put in order. The tradesman some time afterwards became bankrupt, the plaintiff's clocks still remaining in his shop. In an action by the plaintiff against the assignees for taking these clocks,-Held, that, under the circumstances, there was no evidence either that the bankrupt was the reputed owner of the goods, or that they were in his possession, older, or disposition, within the meaning of the above-named section, and, consequently, that the goods did not pass to the assignees. [S C. 3 C. L R 308, 24 L J Ex 4 J; 18 Jur 1109; 3 W E 62 Approved, In le Coustan; Ex p'i'iU Watkms, 1873, L R 8 Ch Ap 520 ftefeired to, Reynold* v. Bowky, 1866, L R 2 Q, B 47 , Expaite Lovermg , In /e Janet, 1874, 9 Ch Ap. 632, hi re Bell, Ex, parte Clatke, 1877, 47 L. J. Bky. 35, In te Watwn & Co., Ex parte Athn, [1904] 2KB 757.] Trover for clocks. Pleas, not guilty and not possessed. Issues thereon. At the trial, before Martin, B , at the Middlesex sittings in the present term, it appeared that the action was brought for the conversion by the defendants, who were the assignees of one Bevm, a bankrupt, of some clocks which the plaintiff had purchased from the bankrupt. Bevin was a clock and watch maker, and had a shop in the city of London, where he exposed for sale a large number of ornamental clocks and watches. A large poition of his business consisted in repairing and cleaning clocks and watches, which work was done in the shop where the clocks and watches wete exposed for sale, and such of the clocks as were under repair usually stood amongst those which were for sale On the 14th of July, 1853, the plaintiff, who had dealt with Bevin for several years, bought of him one of the clocks in question, and at the request of the plaintiff, who stated that he had taken a new house and that he should not require the clock before he had settled in it, it was agreed that the clock should remain in the shop till that time. In the following month of March, Bevin, being in want of money, applied to the plaintiff for assistance, and the plaintitl pur-[546]-chased two more clocks, which were also left in the shop, and which stood among other clocks which were for sale. These clocks were to be sent to the plaintiff's house when they had undergone the necessary cleaning, which work would take a few days to perform. At the time of the sale the small tickets upon the back of each of the clocks, denoting the price, were taken off. On the 7th of April, 1854, a Mat in bankruptcy was issued against Bevin, and he was duly adjudicated a bankrupt. At that time these clocks were in his shop. An order having been made by the Commissioner in bankruptcy for the sale of the clocks, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Henry Boulton, Willlam Atkin Rayson and Theophilus Carrick Samuel Sketchley, a Bankrupt
...Ex parte Littledale (6 De G. Mac. & G. 714), Ex parte JFatkins (2 Mont. & A. 348), Lingard v. Mexsiter {1 B. & C. 308), Hamilton v. Sett (10 Exch. 545), Kirkley v. Hodgson (1 B. & C. 588), Thompson v. Spiers (13 Sim. 469), Timson v. Ramsbottom (2 Keen, 35) Martin v. Sei/gwick (9 Beav. 333),......
-
Re M'Parland; ex parte Murphy
...L. JJ. IN RE M'PARLAND; EX PARTE MURPHY Ex parte TurquandELR 14 Q. B. Div. 636. Lingham v. BiggsUNK 1 B. & P. 82. Hamilton v. BellENR 10 Ex. 545. Webb v. Whinney 16 W. R. 973. Lingard v. MessiterENR 1 B. & C. 306. Ex parte Lovering, Re JonesELRL. R. 9 Ch. App. 621. Ex parte Loving, Re Murre......
-
Re Shaw, A Bankrupt
...L. R. 8 Ch. app. 520. Emerson v. Barnett, Re Hawkins 20 W. R. 110. Ex parte Stooke, Re Bampfield 20 W. R. 925. Hamilton v. BellENR 10 Ex. 545. Ex parte Powell, In re Mathews 1 Ch. Div. 501. Ex p. Watkins, in re CoustonELR L. R. 1 Ch. App. 528. Ex parte Vaux, In re Couston & Co.ELR L. R. 9 C......