Hammond v Attwood
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 February 1818 |
| Date | 03 February 1818 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 56 E.R. 469
COURT OF THE VICE-CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND
3 MADD. 158. HAMMOND V. ATTWOOD 469 [158] hammond v. attwood. Feb. 3, 1818. On demurrer, held that a bankrupt cannot file a bill against a debtor to his estate on the ground of the invalidity of the commission, and of collusion between his assignees and the debtor; the proper course being an action to try the validity of the commission, or a petition to remove the assignees. In this case the bill was filed by a bankrupt to recover property due to his estate, stating that the commission against him was invalid, and a combination between his assignees and the debtor to the estate. The Defendant put in a general demurrer. The case of Benfield v. Solomons (9 Ves. 77), and Lord Redesdale's Treatise (p. 52), were cited in support of the bill. the ViCE-CHANCELLOR [Sir John Leach]. This bill represents the commission against the Plaintiff, as not being valid, and that the assignees betray the interests of his estate. If it be true that the commission is invalid, he should try its validity by an action, and he cannot by a bill impeach the commission. If there be a combination between the debtor and the assignees, to prevent the recovery of the debt, the bankrupt cannot for that reason collect the estate, or take upon himself to represent the rights of the creditors. His proper course is to apply by petition to have the assignees removed and new assignees appointed. In the passage cited...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sainton v Carron Company
...1 West (fern?). Hard.) 169); Utterson v. Mair (2 Ves. jun. 95; 4 Bro. C. C. 27); EenfiM v. Solomons (9 Ves. 77, 86); Hammond v. Attwood (3 Madd. 158); Damn v. Himpxm (4 Ves. 651, 665-7); Al-sager v. Rowley (6 Ves. 748); Nmukmd v. Champion (1 Ves. sen. 105; 2 Colly. 46); fiawxkerv. Watldna (......
-
William Henry Rochfort, - Appellant; Thomas Battersby, Elizabeth Browne, and Others, - Respondents
...has been long settled; Spragg v. Birvkes (5 Ves. 583), Benfield v. Solomons (9 Ves. 77), Saxton v. Davis (18 Ves. 72), Hammond v. Attwood (3 Madd. 158). Some of these were cases in bankruptcy, but the principle is the same, and all of them, except Yewens v. Robinson, were bills filed by ins......
-
Major v Aukland
...him to allow ^he [80] Plaintiff to use his name in the suit upon a proper indemnity: Spragg v. Binkes (5 Ves. 583), Hammond v. Attwood (3 Madd. 158), Sazton v. Davis (18 Ves. 72). The relation of an insolvent debtor to his assignee is very different from the relation of a party beneficially......
-
Heath v Chadwick
...has been long settled ; Spragg v. Sinkes (5 Ves. 583); Benfield v. Solomons (9 Ves. 77); Saxton v. Davis (18 Ves. 72); Hammond v. Atwood (3 Madd. 158). Some of these were cases in bankruptcy, but the principle is the same; and all of them, excepting Ytwms v. Eobinson, were bills filed by in......