Hoskins and Another, Assignees of Deighton a Bankrupt, against Duperoy
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 May 1808 |
| Date | 30 May 1808 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 103 E.R. 663
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Referred to, Glass v. Patterson [1902], 2 Ir. R. 680.
hoskins and another, Assignees of Deighton a Bankrupt, against duperoy. Monday, May 30th, 1808. Goods sold and delivered upon an agreement to be paid for by a present bill payable at a future day does not create a present debt, on which to found a commission of bankrupt: nor can an action for goods sold and delivered be maintained by the vendor before the time when the bill agreed to be given would have become due, and when the contract would be no longer executory. Neither can such executory contract, if no such bill payable at a future day be actually given to secure it, found a good petitioning creditor's debt within the statutes 7 Geo. 1, c. 31, s. 1, and 5 Geo. 2, c. 30, s. 22, which are confined to debts due on bills, bonds, promissory notes, and other personal written securities of the like sort, payable at a future day; which alone by the latter statute are made available to found a good petitioning creditor's debt. [Referred to, Glass v. Patterson ,[1902], 2 Ir. R. 680.] This was an action for money had and received by the defendant to and for the use of the bankrupt, before his bankruptcy, and for money had and received to the use of the assignees after the bankruptcy, and upon an account stated* by the defendant with the assignees: [499] to which the defendant pleaded the general issue; and on the trial at Guildhall, a special verdict was found, which stated, that Deighton before his bankruptcy carried on the trade of a calico printer and manufacturer, and on the 19th of March 1805 Hamer sold to him goods of various prices, by the yard, to the value in the whole of greatly more than 1001., though the exact amount of them in money was never ascertained, nor any statement thereof rendered to Deighton: and it was expressly stipulated and agreed between them at the time of the contract that the amount of the price should be paid by Deighton to Hamer in a present bill of exchange, payable in two months from the time of the sale and delivery of the goods; and no other contract concerning the manner of payment for the goods was agreed upon between them. Hamer has never yet been paid for the goods : and after the sale and delivery thereof as before stated, but before the expiration of two months from such sale or delivery, viz. on the 26th of March 1805, Deighton committed an act of bankruptcy, by departing from his dwelling-house with intent to delay his creditors, and whereby certain of his creditors were delayed (of: and thereupon Hamer, on the 22d of April 1805, petitioned the Chancellor for a commission of (a)1 2 Stra. 1024. ()2 Godb. 255. (a)8 The actual delay of a creditor is not necessary to constitute the act of bankruptcy, if the trader departed from his dwelling-house with that intent. Vide ante, 487, Bobertstm v. Liddell. 664 HOSKINS V. DUPEEOY 9 EAST, 600. bankrupt to issue against Deighton...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Osborne v Rogers, Executor of Weston
...refuses to give the bill, the declaration must be special; 4 East, 147, Mussen v. Price. 3 Bos. & Pull. 582, Dutton v. Solomanson. 9 East, 498, Hoskins v. Duperoy; unless the plaintiff wait till the bill would have become due, if it had been given ; 4 East, 149, note, Miller v. Shawe, per C......
-
Glass v Patterson
...55 L. J. Ch. 101. (8) 60 L. T. (N. S.) 665. (9) 17 Ch. D. 158. (1) 60 L. T. (N. S.) 665. (2) 17 Ch. D. 158. (1) [1902] 2 I. R. 339. (2) 9 East, 498. (3) 7 C. B. (N. S.) (1) 55 L. J. Ch. 101. (2) [1902] 2 I. R. 339. ...
-
Gibson and Another, Assignees of David Rankine, a Bankrupt, v Bel
...East, 147), Dutton v. Solomonson (3 B. & P. 582), Brook v. White (1 New Eep. 330), Hutchinson v. Reid (3 Campb. 329), Hoskins v. Duperoy (9 East, 498). It is, therefore, only a claim for damages incurred by the refusal to accept the bill. And such a claim is not a mutual credit; for though ......
-
Paul v Dod and Holmes
...Sewell, 1 Chitt. E. 609 ; Ferguson v. Carrington, 9 B. & C. 59, 3 C. & P. 457; Heron v. Granger, 5 Esp. N. P. C. 269; HosUns v. Dupermj, 9 East, 498, 6 Esp. N. P. C. 38 ; Marshall v. Poole, 13 East, 98; Helps v. Winterbottom, 2 B. & Ad. 403. English Reports Citation: 135 E.R. 1158 IN THE C......