Hill and Another, Assignees of N. R Holmes, against Farnell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 January 1829 |
| Date | 24 January 1829 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 109 E.R. 17
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
hill and another, Assignees of N. E. Holmes, against farnell. Saturday, January 24th, 1829. A. purchased of B., a hop merchant, a library, and paid him the value. B., at that time, had committed an act of bankruptcy, of which A. had no knowledge: Held, that the assignees could not recover the value of the books, without at least tendering the price, inasmuch as the payment made by A. was declared valid by the 6 G. 4, c. 16, s. 82, and in order to give full 18 HILL V. FARNBLL 9 B. & C. 46. effect to that enactment, A. must, at least, have a lien on the books, in respect of which he had made the payment, until the assignees tendered him the sum paid. Trover for a parcel of books. In the first count of the declaration the books were stated to be the property of the bankrupt; and in the second, the property of the plaintiffs as his assignees. Plea, not guilty. At the trial before Lord Tenterden C.J., at the London sittings in Michaelmas term 1827, a verdict was foupd for the plaintiffs, for 10001. damages, and costs 40s.; the damages, however, to be reduced and entered for Is. only, upon the defendant's delivering up the books to the plaintiffs or their attorneys, in the event of the plaintiffs being entitled to hold the verdict subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case:- On the 9th of August 1826, a commission of bankrupt issued against Holmes, under which he was duly declared [46] a bankrupt, and the plaintiffs were chosen his assignees, and an assignment of all his estate and effects was made; to them on the 8th of September 1826. Before and up to the time of the commission, the bankrupt carried on the business of a hop merchant in the City of London, and in the course of his business he had contracted some very considerable debts, and having afterwards become greatly embarrassed in his circumstances, and unable to meet his creditors, he had, during the months of June and July in the year 1826 and before, committed acts of bankruptcy by absenting himself and beginning to keep house. There was no question as to the trading, act of bankruptcy, or petitioning creditor's debt, which was on a bill of exchange. In the month of April 1826, one Watson was at the house of the bankrupt in London about the purchase of some hops, but which he did not buy, and whilst looking at his library there, the bankrupt asked him if he wanted to purchase some books, saying, that if he did, he should have those in his library cheap as he had bought them, but had not time to read them, and had other books at his residence in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baxter and Another, Assignee of Hill, against Pritchard
...EXCHANGE 1285 none of the older eases turn on a sale accompanied with payment of the full price. Again, the Court held in Hill v. Farnell (9 B. & C. 45), that where a part of the property had been sold by a trader after an act of bankruptcy, but bona fide bought, the purchaser could not be ......
-
Willis and Another, Assignees of Noreliffe, a Bankrupt, against The Governor and Company of the Bank of England
...case, the bankrupt himself had been known to the agent at the branch bank, and bad got the bills exchanged by him, Hill v. Farnell (9 B. & C. 45), would have been applicable. Whether the bankrupt had title to the notes or not, the payment of 10001. for them by the agent was made bonA fide, ......
-
Ward and another, Assignees of Pratt, a Bankrupt, v Clarke and another
...defendants was fraudulent, but whether it was in the ordinary course of trade (a) Cash v. Ymmg, 2 B. & C. 413. See also Rill v. Farnell, 9 B. & C. 45 ; Bishop v. Crawshay, 3 B. & C. 415. 1238 DANIELS V. POTTER M, & M. 800. and dealing. In considering that, you may look to the antecedent tra......
-
Pearson, Assignee of James Graham, a Bankrupt, against Andrew Graham and Others
...v. Young (2 B. & C. 413), shews that, under stat. 1 Jac. 1, c. 15, s. 14, trover would not lie for goods so paid for; and Hill v. Farnell (9 B. & C. 45), is to the same effect under stat. 6 G-. 4, c. 16, s. 82. Cur. adv. vult. Lord Denman C.J. in this term (May 31st) delivered the judgment ......