Martindale and Another against F. Booth, W. S. Copeland, and J. Wilson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 May 1832 |
| Date | 04 May 1832 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 180
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 1 L. J. K. B. 166. Referred to, Crawcow v. Salter, 1881, 18 Ch. D. 43.
martindalb and another against F. booth, W. S. copeland, and J. wilson. Friday, May 4th, 1832. A. being indebted to B. in the sum of 101. for goods, applied for a further supply upon credit, and for a loan. B. refused to grant either without security ; and it was then agreed that A. should give a bill of sale of his household furniture and fixtures, and that B. should give him credit for 2001. on that security. Before the bill of sale was executed, B., upon the faith of such agreement, advanced to A. 901. in money and goods, and afterwards, on the 8th of May 1828, A. executed a bill of sale, whereby, in consideration of the debt of 1001. he bargained and sold to B. all his (A.'s) household goods and furniture, &c. with a proviso, that if A. should pay the 1001. by instalments, the first of which was to be due on the 7th of June, the deed should be void ; but in default of payment of any of the instalments at the times appointed, it should be lawful, although no advantage should have been taken of any previous default, for B. to enter upon the premises and take possession, and sjell off the goods. There was a further proviso, that until such default, it should be lawful for A. to keep possession of them. In 1823 A. had given a warrant of attorney to C. and D., as security for a debt of 1100L, and they, in November 1828, entered up judgment and sued out a fi. fa., under which the sheriff seized the goods: Held, in trespass brought by B. against the sheriff, that under these circumstances the bill of sale was not fraudulent by reason of A.'s having continued in possession. Semble, that after a conveyance of goods and chattels, want of possession does not constitute fraud, as against creditors, but is only evidence of it. [S. C. 1 L. J. K. B. 166. Referred to, Crawcow v. Salter, 1881, 18 Ch. D. 43.] Trespass for taking away and converting furniture, goods and chattels of the plaintiffs. Plea, not guilty. At the trial before Lord Tenterden C.J., at the Middlesex sittings after Trinity term 1829, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs for 931. 16s., subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case :- Before the 8th of May 1828, one W. G. Priest, who kept the Peacock Tavern in Maiden Lane, Middlesex, was indebted to the plaintiffs, wine and spirit merchants, in 101. for wine and spirits. Priest having applied to them for a further supply of wine upon credit, and for a loan of money, the plaintiffs refused to give him any further credit, or to lend him any money unless he [499] would give them satisfactory security. Priest then proposed to execute a bill of sale to them of the furniture and fixtures in the Peacock Tavern as such security, and the plaintiffs agreed to give him credit thereupon to the extent of 2001. After Priest and the plaintiffs had agreed to give and accept such security, but before the bill of sale was actually executed, the SB. & AD. 500. MARTIN DALE V. BOOTH 181 plaintiffs, upon the faith of such agreement, advanced to Priest 301. in money, and to the amount of 601. in wine and spirits, and in two days afterwards, viz. the 8th of May 1828, in pursuance of the agreement, Priest executed and delivered to the plaintiffs a bill of sale, reciting that he, Priest, was indebted to the plaintiffs in the sum of 1001. for money advanced and goods sold and delivered, and stating that, in consideration thereof, he granted, bargained, sold, and assigned unto the plaintiffs all the household goods, furniture, &c. in and about the premises called the Peacock Tavern, to hold to the proper use and behoof of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A P Holroyd and Others v J G Marshall and Others
...the priority claimed by them; Langton v. Hot-ton (1 Hare, 549); Brace v. The Duchess of Man-bm-ough (2 P. Wms. 491); Martindale v. Booth (3 B. & Ad. 498). Mr. Bacon and Mr. Wickens, for the sheriff'. Mr. Amphlett and Mr. Hobhouse, for the Defendant Preller. We do not questioh the propositio......
-
Holderness v Rankin
...Wood v. liusstll (5 Barn. & Aid. 942); Hay v. Fairbairn (2 Barn. & Aid. 193); Tanner v. Heard (23 Beav. 555); Martini/ale v. Booth (3 Barn. & Ad. 498); Steph. Comm. (vol. 2, p. 18), were cited. the master of the rolls. Mr. Palmer, before you proceed to reply I wish to hear you on a point wh......
-
Lindon and Others, Assingnees of Mason, v Sharp
...whether the continuance in possession is fraudulent or not. It is a strong fact, but not conclusive. Erskine J, In Martindale v. Booth (3 B. & Ad. 498), the 1156 LINDON V. SHARP 6 MAN. &G. 899. doctrine of Buller J., in Edwards v. Harben, is repudiated, and continuing in possession is treat......
-
O'Connor, Assignee of Christopher Wilson and George Beere v John Harris and Others
...1 D. & Low. 442; S. C. 12 M. & W. 111. Pearson v. Graham 6 A. & E. 899. Elkin v. JansonENR 13 M. & W. 655. Martindale v. BoothENR 3 B. & Ad. 498. Darley v. SmithENR 1 Br. & B. 272. Bevan v. Nunn 2 Moor. & Scott, 134. Carke v. Crownshaw; Soames v. WattsENR 1 C. & P. 400. Lyon v. WeldonENR 3 ......