Hewer against Cox
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 November 1860 |
| Date | 28 November 1860 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 121 E.R. 503
IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH.
S. C. 30 L. J. Q. B. 73; 3 L. T. 508; 6 Jur. N. S. 1339; W. R. 143. Approved, Jones v. Harris, 1871, L. R. 7 Q. B. 163. Principles applied, Btount v. Harris, 1878, 4 Q. B. D. 606. Followed, Ex parte M'Hattie, 1878, 10 Ch. D. 398; Greenham v. Child, 1889, 24 Q. B. D. 31.
[428] hewer against Cox. Wednesday, November 28th, 1860. Stat. 17 & 18 Viet. c. 36 s. 1, requires a description of the residence and occupation of the person making a bill of sale of personal chattels to be filed with every such bill of sale; in order to the validity of the bill of sale as against creditors of that person.-G. & H., printers carrying on business in copartnership in New Street, Blackfriars, in the city of London, but not sleeping there, having made a bill of sale of the partnership goods, the description filed with the bill stated that they were printers and copartners, residing at New Street, Blackfriars, in the county of Middlesex.-Held that the description was sufficient, and the bill of sale valid : for that no creditor of G. & H. could have been misled as to their identity with the persons described, had the description merely specified New Street, Blackfriars, as their place of residence; and that the erroneous addition, "in the county of Middlesex," instead of " in the city of London," was only falsa demonatratio.- Held, further, that New Street, Blackfriars, was the residence of G. & H. within the meaning of the statute. [S. C. 30 L. J. Q. B. 73; 3 L. T. 508; 6 Jur. N. S. 1339; 9 W. K. 143. Approved, Jones v. Harris, 1871, L. R. 7 Q. B. 163. Principles applied, Blount v. Harris, 1878, 4 Q. B. D. 600. Followed, Exparte M'Hattie, 1878, 10 Ch. D. 398; Greenham v. Child, 1889, 24 Q. B. D. 31.] Case stated under an interpleader order. On 17th September, I860, the sheriffs of London seized, under a writ of fi. fa., at the suit of the defendant, Cox, in an action by him against one William Godson, certain goods and chattels which, on 10th February 1859, before the delivery of the writ to the sheriffs, had been assigned by the said William Godson and one John Hogben, the owners of the said goods and chattels, by bill of sale to the plaintiff Hewer. On 18th February, 1859, a copy of the bill of sale, and also an affidavit, made under stat. 17 & 18 Viet. c. 36, were filed under the provisions of that Act. At the time of the execution of the bill of sale, and of the filing of the copy thereof, and of the swearing and filing of the affidavit, the said John Hogben resided at 2, Holly (a) Before Wood V.C., 1 John. & Hem. 145. Affirmed on appeal, by Lord Campbell, L. C., 2 De G. F. & J. 423. 504 HEWER V. COX 3 EL. & EL. 429. Cottages, Wellington Place, Stoke Newington, in the county of Middlesex, and bhe said William Godson resided at Palsgrave Place, Temple Bar, in the county of Middlesex; and both carried on business in copartnership as printers, in New Street, Blaokfriara, in the city of London, and not elsewhere, but did not sleep there. In the [429] aid bill of sale and copy thereof, and also in the affidavit, the said William Godson and John Hogbea were described as residing at New Street, Blackfriars, in the county of Middlesex, and as printers and copartners. There is no such place as New Street, Blackfriars, in the county of Middlesex, unless the aforesaid New Street, Bkackfriars, in the city of London, can be so considered. On the seizure of the said goods and chattels by the sheriffs, the plaintiff Hewer claimed them as his property, by virtue of the said bill of sale. An interpleader summons was thereupon taken out by the sheriffs; upon which Wilde B., the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Palaniappa Chettiar, Re the estate of
-
R (Gallagher) v Chairman and Justices of County Tyrone
...(2) I. R. 11 C. L. 59. (1) 4 B. & C. 959. (1) Before Fitz Gibbon, Walker, and Holmes, L.JJ. (2) 16 Ch. D. 484. (3) 8 E. & B. 541. (4) 3 E. & E. 428. (5) 2 H. & N. (6) 10 Ir. C. L. R. App. xxiv. (7) Kay, 534. (8) 39 L. T. R. 444. (9) 24 Q. B. D. 748. (1) 10 Ir. C. L. R. (App. xxiv.) (2) 6 Ir......
-
Harris v O'Loghlen
...Thorp v. BrowneELR L. R. 2 H. L. 220. Davies v. Kennedy Ir. Rep. 3 Eq. 68. In re EdgeworthUNK 11 Ir. Ch. Rep. 294. Hewer v. CoxENR 3 El. & El. 428. Slator v. SlatorUNK 16 Ir. Ch. Rep. 488. In re Power 11 Ir. Ch. R. 288. In re Flood's EstateUNK 17 Ir. Ch. Rep. 127. Crosbie v. Murphy 8 Ir. L.......