Heath v Chadwick
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 July 1848 |
| Date | 12 July 1848 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 41 E.R. 1094
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Motion v. Moojen, 1872, L. R. 14 Eq. 208.
heath v. chadwick. July 12, 1848. [See Motion v. Moqjen, 1872, L. R. 14 Eq. 208.] Creditors of an insolvent cannot maintain a suit respecting property or rights alleged to have belonged to the insolvent, and to be vested in his assignee under the Insolvent Debtors Acts, upon an allegation of collusion between the assignee and the party against whom the relief is prayed : and the same rule applies to suits for a similar object by the insolvent himself. This was an appeal from an order of the Vice-Chancellor of England overruling a general demurrer to the bill. The material substance of the bill, which was very voluminous, is stated in the Lord Chancellor's judgment. On the hearing of the appeal, Mr. Stuart and Mr. Eogers appeared in support of the demurrers. [650] Mr. Bethell and Mr. Lloyd, for the bill. the lord chancellor [Cottenham]. The bill is filed by Heath on behalf of himself and all other the creditors of Jacob Connop, an insolvent, under the Insolvent Debtors Acts, except some who are made Defendants, and of whom Lawrence is stated to be assignee under those Acts. The bill alleges divers incumbrances effected by the insolvent to several of the Defendants which it impeaches for usury, and alleging a sale of the insolvent's leasehold property by the assignee, under which George Pearson, the Defendant demurring, became a purchaser of part, states that the lease so purchased was afterwards surrendered to the lessor, and a new lease granted or agreed to be granted by him, and charging collusion between the assignee and the several Defendants incumbrancers and purchasers, prays to redeem the incumbrancers, notwithstanding the sale, surrender, and new lease, for the benefit of the creditors of the insolvent. PH. Ml. HEATH't'. CHAD WICK 1095 The bill does not allege or put in issue the fact of the Plaintiffs debt, or state when the insolvency took place; but it does allege that at a meeting of the creditors, for the purpose of considering whether any suit in equity should be commenced for the purposes sought by this bill, or any measures adopted for the removal of the assignee, it was resolved that it would be inexpedient to take any proceedings for such objects. The demurrer is for want of equity, multifariousness, and want of parties. [651] The first objection, that the Plaintiff, filing a bill on behalf of himself and all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A. v A
...J., 28 February 2012). Grady v. Prison Service [2003] EWCA Civ 527, [2003] 3 All E.R. 745; [2003] I.R.L.R. 474. Heath v. Chadwick (1848) 2 Ph. 649; 41 E.R. 1094. Heath v. Tang [1993] 1 W.L.R. 1421; [1993] 4 All E.R. 694. Re Hughes (1858) 31 L.T.R. O.S. 207. Khan v. Trident Safeguards Ltd. [......
-
Troup v Richardo
...18); Westhead v. Keene (1 Beav. 287); Rochfart v. Batttrsby (2 H. L. Gas. 388); Dysm v. Hornby (7 De G. M. & G. 1); Heath v. Cliad-wick (2 Ph. 649). the lord chancellor. Two causes of demurrer to this bill are assigned-want of equity and multifariousness. Let me first give a sketch of the n......
- Mcnamara v San (No 3)
-
McIntosh v The Great Western Railway Company and Others
...fraudulently, this Court would counteract that fraud. Mr. Bethell replied. The following authorities were referred to:-Heath v. Chadwick (2 Ph. 649), Pirn v. Wilsm (Id. 653), Kirk v. The Bromley Union, (Id. 640), Jackson, v. The North Wales Railway Company (1 Hall & T. 75), Hotha/m v. The E......