Jones v Simpson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 November 1858 |
| Date | 25 November 1858 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 157 E.R. 706
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 28 L. J. Ex. 180; 4 Jur. (N. S.) 1282.
jones v. simpson. Nov. 25, 1858.-The defendant being indebted to the plaintiff on a bill for 251., accepted by him for the accommodation of one B., was served with & writ of summons on the 23rd of July, and judgment was signed on the 31st for 291. 15s. debt and costs. On the 24th the defendant petitioned the Court of Bankruptcy for protection, under the 211th section of the Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act, 1849, and in the account of his debts, filed under the 214th section, on the 17th of August, inserted the plaintiff as a creditor for the bill, saying nothing as to the consideration or as to the costs. His proposal for the compromise of his debts was duly assented to at two private sittings by majorities consisting of 3-5ths of his creditors, who had proved debts amounting to 101. The Court approved and confirmed the proposal, and granted to the defendant a certificate of the filing and entering of record of such approval, &c., and endorsed on such certificate a protection from arrest, under the 216th section, until 25th of March, 1859. The defendant's goods having been seized under a fi. fa. in the action at the suit of the plaintiff, and a Judge at Chambers having set aside the execution : on motion to set aside this order, on the grounds , first, that the defendant's property was not protected by the order under section 216 ; secondly, that the protection was void against the plaintiff, on the ground that his debt was not truly specified ; thirdly, that the order should not have been to set aside the execution, but simply that the sheriff should withdraw : Held, that the defendant's property was protected, and that the order was rightly made. [S. C. 28 L. J. Ex. 180; 4 Jur. (N. S.) 1282.] This was an action brought to recover 251. on a bill of exchange which had been accepted by the defendant for the accommodation of one Baxtei. The writ was served [837] on the 23rd of July, and judgment signed on the 31st for the sum of 251. 15s. and 41. costs, making together 291 15s. On the 24th of July the defendant filed a petition in the Court of Bankruptcy for the Birmingham district, under the 211th section of the Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act, 1849, praying that his person and property might be protected from process until further order, whereupon the Court granted such protection till the 25th of August...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M'Donnell v Broderick
...2 B. & Ad. 328. Hemp v. Garland 4 Q. B. 519. Irving v. VeitchENR 3 M. & W. 90. Iven v. ElwesENR 3 Drew. 25. Jones v. SimpsonENR 3 H. & N. 836. Kennedy v. Blackburne 11 Ir. Jur. (N. S.) 388. Lade v. TrillUNK 6 Jur. 272. Moran v. ReymondsUNK Ir. R. 3 C. L. 353. Morgan v. RowlandsELR L. R. 7 Q......
-
Moran and Another v Reynolds
...N. S. 388. Blackford v. Hill 15 Q. B. Rep. 116. Davis v. Percy 1 L. R. C. P. 256. Temple v. SleighENR 9 C. B. 348. Jones v. SimpsonENR 3 H. & N. 836. Davis v. PercyELR L. R. 1 C. P. 256. Lister v. MundellUNK 1 B. & P. 427. Hanson v. BlakeyUNK 1 B. & P. 261. Davis v. ShapleyENR 1 B. & Ad. 54......
-
Furlong v Fottrell
...50. In re Farrell Ir. R. 1 Eq. 81. Mare v. SandfordENR 1 Giff. 288, see p. 297. Davis v. PercyELR L. R. 1 C. P. 256. Jones v. SimpsonENR 3 H. & N. 836. Kennedy's Estate 17 Ir. Ch. R. 104. Lambe's Estate Ante, p. 286. Cullingworth v. LloydENR 2 Beav. 385. — 20 & 21 Vict. c. 60 — Arrangem......
-
The Estate of Henry Lambe, Owner; Patrick Rogers, Petitioner
...App. IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF HENRY LAMBE, OWNER; PATRICK ROGERS, PETITIONER. In re Kennedy 17 Ir. Ch. R. 104. Jones v. SimpsonENR 3 H. & N. 836. Kennedy v. Blackburn 11 Ir. Jur. N. S. 388. Fluester v. M'ClellandENR 8 C. B. N. S. 357. Longmans v. Wallace 10 Ir. Jur. N. S. 191. Kennedy......