Lloyd v Archbowle
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 May 1810 |
| Date | 17 May 1810 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 127 E.R. 1102
Common Pleas Division
1 102 HOLMES V. RERRISON 2 TAUNT. 323. taxed before the master. This is business done for the bankrupt in applying to his creditors, and to the Lord Chancellor in order to get his certificate signed by them: and none of the statutes passed respecting bankruptcy at all apply to it. Since this statute expressly gives the master authority to tax the costs, it is to be inferred that he derives it from this only, and did not before that act possess it, and the act certainly does not extend to this case. MANSFIELD C. J. That is true ; and that circumstance for a time begat doubts in the Chancellor, whether he could issue an attachment in such a proceeding ; but it is now settled that he can : and it is very reasonable that it should be so, otherwise it would be in the power of an attorney to plunder a poor bankrupt, and be would have no redress ; but it is now decided that all proceedings by petition to the Chancellor are proceedings in Chancery ; and causes of the utmost magnitude and importance come on in that shape ; and this is a proceeding in the cause, and taxable by the master. I should have thought that the business done under the commission would, without the aid. of the statute 5 Geo. 2, have been taxable by the master. In ordinary cases assignees have only to get in debts under the commission, and have no business before the Court; but here is a proceeding in court. An application must be made to the Chancellor to have his signature to the certificate, and it has long been settled, that where a bill contains one item which is a proceeding in a court, all the residue of the bill, though it be even a bill merely for conveyancing, is taxable. The Court unanimously concurred in making the rule for a nonsuit Absolute. Best in support of the rule. E323 HOLMES v. KERRISON. May 15, 1810. No debt accrues on a bill payable after sight, until it is presented for payment.-- Therefore the statute of limitations is no bar to such a note, unless it has been presented for payment six years before the action commenced. This was an action directed by the Court of Chancery. The Defendant was a banker at Norwich, and had failed : the Plaintiff had some years since deposited money with him, for which she held his promissory notes payable at a certain number of days after sight, and bearing 3 per cent. interest. Upon these notes the action was brought, and the Defendant pleaded the statute of limitations. Upon the trial of this cause at Guildhall, at the sittings after last Hilary term, before Mansfield C. J. the Defendants insisted on the statute, but offered no evidence that the bills bad ever been presented for payment six years before the action commenced, and there was on the other hand some evidence that the bills were still unpaid ; for the chief clerk...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bourne and Others v Gatliffe, in Error
...advanced him the amount, which amount was applied by him to the use of the partnership. (b) I Esp. N. P. 468. And see Lloyd v. Archbowle, 2 Taunt. 324; Mawman v. Gillett, ibid. 325, n.; Lucas v. De La Cour, 1 Maule & Selw. 249 ; Matthews, Ex parte, 3 Ves. & B. 125; Smith Carolina Bank v. Ca......
-
Robson and Sharpe against Drummond
...a mere dormant partner, and a dormant partner cannot maintain an action upon a contract to which he is not a party, Lloyd v. Archbowle (2 Taunt. 324), Mawman v. Gillett (2 Taunt. 325, n. (a)). But assuming that the two might sustain an action on a contract made by one for the benefit of the......
-
Skinner and Others against Stocks
...might be deprived of his right of set-off. For he cannot set off a separate debt of Skinner against the present demand. Lloyd v. Archlold (2 Taunt. 324). The learned Judge at the trial over-ruled the objection, and the plaintiffs had a verdict. Brougham now renewed his objection, and moved ......
-
M'Birney and Collis v Harran
...Pleas. M'BIRNEY AND COLLIS and HARRAN. Leveck v. ShaftoeENR 2 Esp. 498. Llod v. ArchboleENR 2 Taunt. 324. Stacey v. DacyENRENR 2 Esp. 470. n.; S. C. 7 T. R. 361, n. Atkinson v. LaingHRC 1 D. & R. 16. 428 CASES AT LAW. M'BIRNEY AND COLLIS v. HARRAN. THIS was an action brought by the drawers ......