Martin and Others, Assignees of Edward Robarts, a Bankrupt, v Thomas Pewtress and Josiah Robarts
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1769 |
| Date | 01 January 1769 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 98 E.R. 299
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
4 BtJRR. 2478. MARTIN V. PEWTRESS 299 martin and others, Assignees of Edward Robarts, a Bankrupt, v, thomas pewtress and josiah robarts. 1769. Fraudulent sale to one creditor to cheat others void. [See 3 Brown, 503. 2 H. Bl. 135.] This was an action of trover brought by the assignees of a bankrupt, for large quantities of goods of the bankrupt, to the amount of £19,562, 17s. 8d. The cause was tried before Lord Mansfield, by a special jury at Guildhall, at the sittings after the last Trinity term : and a verdict was given for the plaintiffs, for the above sum. The defendants had obtained a rule to shew cause why, upon payment of costs, this verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial had. Upon shewing cause now, Lord Mansfield reported the evidence. The defendants were bankers, and large creditors of the bankrupt. Edward Robarts, the bankrupt, is the brother of the defendant Josiah Robarts. The value of the goods for which this action is brought, got into the hands of the defendants in the following manner. Edward Robarts bought goods upon credit, from several tradesmen who did not suspect his circumstances. The defendants employed agents to buy these goods from the bankrupt. Particularly, one Nathaniel Sweet, who had been a bankrupt, and was then insolvent, bought, between March 1767 and June 1768, (when Edward Robarts became bankrupt,) to the amount of £7709 at prime cost: for which, he gave his notes, payable at a future day. These notes were paid in to tbe defendants : and Sweet sold the goods for the use of the defendants, and accounted with them for the profits, as their agents. The defendants sent another man, one Moses Birch, to buy goods of the bankrupt, to the amount of £2163, 15s. lid. prime cost; and furnished him with banknotes to that amount, to pay for them. He paid these notes to Edward Robarts the bankrupt; who changed [2478] them, at the bank, for others; which he paid in to the defendants. Birch sold the goods, for the use of the defendants; and paid them the produce: and in like manner, as to all the rest. The price, at prime cost, was furnished in paper, by the defendants, to the agent; received by Edward Robarts ; and returned to the defendants; or notes given by the agent, which notes Edward Robarts paid in to the defendants and discounted with them: and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alderson and Others, Assignees, v Temple
...id. 416; Alley v. Hotson, 4 Camp. 325; De Tastet v. Carrol, 1 Stark. 88 ; Poland v. Glyn, '2 D. & B. 310. (/) Accord. Martin v. Pewtress, 4 Burr. 2477; Harman v. Fishar, Cowp. 117; Rust v. Cooper, id. 629; Singleton v. Butler, 2 Bos. & P. 283 ; Thornton v. Hargreaves, 1 East, 544; Wilson v.......
-
Richard Henry Billiter against Heathfield Young
...it, although competent to contract, and although in point of form they did in fact contract, according to the case of Martin v Pewtress (4 Burr. 2477) the pretended sale was void and would not change the property. If the defendant was, not a creditor preferred by the transaction, but a bon ......
-
Ex parte Cockshott, John Ridehalgue, a Bankrupt
...one of his creditors, to give him an unfair preference, but that it had been held by Lord Mansfield, in Martin v. Peewtress and Bobarts, 4 Burr. 2477, that an assignment in order to be within the clause of the 1 Ja. 1, c. 15, s. 2, must be by deed-that was a case of goods bought by the bank......
-
R v Cuming
...upon any particular service. Some of us, as at present advised, are of opinion with Yates, J., in the case cited (Vertue v. Lord Olive, 4 Burr, p. 2477), that it would not. We leave the question, however, distinctly open to be argued and decided if in any case hereafter it should be necessa......