Mogg and Another, Assignees of Purnell, an Insolvent Debtor v Baker
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1838 |
| Date | 01 January 1838 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 1113
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 1 H. & H. 55; 7 L. J. Ex. 94. See further, 4 M. & W. 348; 1 H. & H. 461. Commented on, Holroyd v. Marshall, 1862, 10 H. L. C. 191.
Moc} and another, Assignees of Purnell, an Insolvent Debtor v. baker. Exch. of Pleas. 1838.-Assignees of a bankrupt or an insolvent debtor take only such property as be was equitably as well as legally entitled to at the time of the bankruptcy or assignment,-Therefore, if A. agree to assign to B. certain specific goods, by way of security for money advanced by B. for the purchase of them; and afterwards, in pursuance of such agreement, actually assign them ; although the assignment itself be under such circumstances as would have rendered it void under the Insolvent Debtors Act, and A. subsequently takes the benefit of that act, Ids assignees are not entitled to such goods.-Secus, if the agreement related to such goods as A. might have at the time of the execution of the assignment, their corpus not being ascertained at the time of the agreement. [S. C. 1 H. & H. 55 ; 7 L. J. Ex. 94. See further, 4 M. & W. 348; 1 H. & H. 461. Commented on, Holroyd v. Marshull, 1862, 10 H. L. C. 191.] Asaumpsit for money had and received to the use of the plaintiffs as assignees, and on an account stated. Plea, non assumpsit. At the trial before Tindal, C. J., at the last Bristol Assizes, it appeared that in the spring of 18:15, the insolvent Purnell became tenant to the defendant of an inn at Clevedon, in Somersetshire. On his entering upon the house, one Carter supplied furniture to the value of 1701., which was paid for by the defendant, it being then agreed that Purnell should give the defendant a bill of sale of " the goods and furniture " as a security for the advance. In July, 1836, (the bill of sale not having yet been given, although Purnell had repeatedly asked for and offered to execute it,) the defendant presented his account to Purnell, including the 1701. for furniture, and amounting in the whole to 4031.: and on the 12th July, Purnell sigtied the account as correct, and on the same day executed a bill of sale to the defendant of all his household goods, furniture, wines, &c., and also gave him a warrant of attorney, to secure the amount of the account. Purnell continued in possession of the house and furniture until the 24th September, when the defendant put a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quistclose Investments Ltd v Rolls Razor Ltd ((in Liquidation))
...his assignee in which he has both the legal and the beneficial interest at the time of the bankruptcy. See Baron Parka's observation in Mogg v. Baker (3 M. & W. 195, at page 3The facts of the case are as follows. In the spring of 1964 Rolls Razor was in Queer Street. It had achieved a very ......
-
A P Holroyd and Others v J G Marshall and Others
...(7 Q.- B. 850), Lmn v. Thornton (1 C. B. 379), Douglas v. Russel (4 Sim. 524; S. C. 1 M. & K. 488), were cited. See also Mogg v. Baker (3 M. & W. 195).] Mr. Bacon and Mr. Wickens, for the sheriff, submitted to the Court, whether, in order to give validity to the assignment, there ought to h......
-
Edwards v Glyn
...that purpose, was protected as against his assignees. Moore v. Barthrop (1 B. & C. 5) is a decision to the same effect. In Mogg v. Baker (3 M. & W. 195), the decision in which case, in , error (4 M. & W. 348), has been referred to by the Court, it was laid down, by I Parke B., that the assi......
-
Harries v Lloyd
...be paid. There was no fraud in perfecting the equitable lien, and such an act is not sufficient to avoid the transaction. Mogg v. Baker (3 M. & W. 195). 892 HARRIES V. LLOYD BEAV.0. There is no proof of insolvency; the schedule is not evidence as against the parties claiming under the as-[4......