Mackley against Hannah Pattenden
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 May 1861 |
| Date | 02 May 1861 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 121 E.R. 681
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
[178] mackliv against hannah patienden. Thursday, May 2d, 1861.-Bank ruptcy. Election by assignees. .Reasonable time.-A party who had deposited a lease for years with the plaintiff as security for a debt, and given him a memorandum by way of equitable mortgage, became bankrupt in 1847, but was allowed to remain in possession and receive the rents until his death in 1858. In 1859 the Court of Bankruptcy, on application of the plaintiff, made an order for the sale of the lease, or, in the event of sale being deemed not advisable, that it should be assigned to the plaintiff. The sura bid for the property being insufficient to satisfy the plaintiff's claim, it was assigned to him in 1860 by the official assignee, and a creditors' assignee appointed in lieu of the original creditors' assignee, who had refused to concur in the sale. In ejectment by the plaintiff against the personal representative of the bankrupt, held :-1. That the assigning the lease to the plaintiff was an acceptance of it by the assignees.-2. That it was a question for the jury whether they had accepted it within a reasonable time. This was an action of ejectment to recover a piece of ground with two messuages thereon. At the trial before Hill J., at the Middlesex sittings after Trinity Term, I860, it appeared that in May, 1846, a lease of the premises for ninety-years, at an annual rent of 101. was made by B. and E., to Joseph Pattenden. Pattenden became bankrupt in August, 1847, and in July, 1849, the plaintiff proved his debt. Previous to his bankruptcy, Pattenden deposited the lease with the plaintiff as security for a debt, and gave him a memorandum by way of equitable mortgage; but Pattenden was allowed to remain in possession, and received the rents until his death, which took place in February, 1858; he having made a will a few days previously, whereby he bequeathed this lease to the defendant, who was his wife, and whom he also constituted his sole executrix. In 1859 the Court of Bankruptcy, on the application of the plaintiff, made an order for the sale of the lease, or, in the event [179] of a sale not being deemed advisable, that it should be assigned to the plaintiff. The sum bid for the property being insufficient to satisfy the plaintiff's claim, ib was assigned to him in 1860 by the official assignee, and a creditors' assignee appointed in lieu of the original creditors' assignee, who had refused to concur in the sale. On this ttate of facts the defendant's counsel...
To continue reading
Request your trial