Jones and Others, Assignees of Sykes and Bury, Bankrupts, against Fort
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 July 1829 |
| Date | 08 July 1829 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 109 E.R. 284
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Commented on, Exley v. Inglis, 1868, L. R. 3 Ex. 252.
jones and others, Assignees of Sykes and Bury, Bankrupts, against fort. Wednesday, July 8th, 1829. Where bills of exchange were delivered by a trader, in contemplation of bankruptcy, to a creditor, with a view of giving him the preference, and the amount due on the bills was received by him after the bankruptcy: Held, in an action of trover by the assignees to recover the bills, that the receipt of the money by the creditor was not a conversion, and, therefore, that it was necessary for them to prove a demand and refusal before the bills became due. [Commented on, Exley v. Inglis, 1868, L. E. 3 Ex. 252.] The first count of the declaration charged, that the defendant deceitfully obtained possession of five bills of exchange under the pretence of discounting them. The remaining counts were in trover, alleging a conversion after the bankruptcy. Plea, not guilty. At the trial before Lord Tenterden C.J. at the London [765] sittings after Trinity term 1828, it appeared that the action was brought to recover five bills of exchange delivered by the bankrupts to the defendant on the 23d of July 1825, as the plaintiffs alleged, in contemplation of bankruptcy. One was drawn on James Hunter and Co., due the 23d July 1826, for 30001.; another on M'Clachlan and Co., due the 21st October 1826, for 15001.; and three others, each 5001., on Thomas Ferguson, two of which were due 29th November 1826, the other the 5th November 1826. Sykes and Bury committed an act of bankruptcy on the 28th November 1825, and on the 30th a commission issued against them, under which they were duly declared bankrupts, and the plaintiffs were appointed assignees. It appeared that 9 B. &C. 766. JONES V. FORT 285 Fort had received the amount of some of the bills when they became due. It was proved, on the part of the plaintiffs, that after the bills became due, on the 23d of October 1827, a persbn employed by the assignees as accountant to the estate demanded the bills from the defendant on account of the assignees. The defendant referred the accountant to his attorney, but, the accountant did not apply to the attorney. And it was thereupon contended, on the part of the defendant, that the demand having been made after th.e bills became due was not sufficient, and that the answer of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v Treanor and Others
... ... in Jones v. Fort , Moo. & M. 196, held to have been ... other bank would sustain an indictment against him for robbing the H. Bank. It was also ... ...
-
Wilbraham v Snow
...competent at the time ; and if the assignees disaffirm the contract they should give notice by a demand. 2 H. Bl. 135, Nixon v. Jenkin. [9 B, & C. 764, Jones v. Fort. See M. & Malk. 377, Tennant v. Strachan. 1 M. & Rob. 239, Robsm v. Bolls.] And see further, 5 East, 407, Bloxam v. Hubbard. ......
-
Sir Richard Carr Glyn, Bart, Thomas Hallifax, Richard Plumptre Glyn, Charles Millis, and George Carr Glyn, Plaintiffs, Manoel Joaquim Soares, and Her Most Faithful Majesty Donna Maria, Queen of Portugal and the Algarves, Defendants
...be stayed for ever; the bond-holder could have no remedy against Kichardson Why, then, should .Richardson be protected1? Jones v. Fuit (9 B. & C. 764 j 4 M. & R. 547) is an authority to shew that Soares has a right to sue, even though he may not have a right to receive the profits of these ......
-
Hudson, Assignee of Henry, a Bankrupt, v M'Allen
...v. DickensENR 8 Barn. & Cress. 722. Notley v. BuckENR 8 Barn. & Cress. 160. Giles v. Grover 1 Clerk & Fin. 72. Jones v. FrostENR 9 Barn. & Cress. 764. Kelcey v. Minter 1 Scott, 616. Notley v. Buck 8 B. & Cr. 160.; 2 M. & Ryl. 68. Groves v. CowhanENR 10 Bing. 5. Whitforth v. CliftonENR 1 M. ......