Morgan and Another, Assignees of Perrin, a Bankrupt v Marquis and Another

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date02 November 1853
Date02 November 1853
CourtExchequer

English Reports Citation: 156 E.R. 62

IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER

Morgan and Another, Assignees of Perrin, a Bankrupt
and
Marquis and Another

S. C. 2 C. L. R. 276, 23 L. J. Ex. 21.

[145] exchequer reports michaelmas term, 17 Vicr morgan and another, Assignees of Perrin, a Bankrupt t; marquis and another Nov. 2, 1853 -One of two tenants in common of certain goods committed an act of bankruptcy, after which the defendants, by direction of the other tenant in common, sold the good'* -Held, first, that the assignees of the bankrupt could not recover from the defendants the proceeds of the sale in an action for money hud and received, nor maintain detinue, secondly, that the defence, that the goods were sold by direction of the solvent partner, might be given in evidence under nou cletinet. [S. C 2 C. L. R. 276, 23 L. J. Ex. 21.] The declaration contained a count for money received by the defendants for the use of the plaintiffs as assignees , and also a count in detinue for goods of the plaintiffs as assignees. 9E3L1L MORGAN V. MARQUIS 63 Pleas-To the first count, never indebted, to the second, non detinent upon which issues were joined. At the trial, before Erie, J., at the last Liverpool Assizes, it appeared that the action was brought to recover the proceeds of 1020 barrels of flour sold by the defendants under the following circumstances1-The plaintiffs were the assignees of one Perrin, a bankrupt, who had carried on business as a merchant in Liverpool, and the defendants were eommission agents in Liverpool. In March, 1852, the defendants, by the direction of Perrin, purchased 2020 barrels of Baltimore flour, and they sent him cin advice note, which stated that they had bought the flour for him alone. Shortly afterwards the defendants had notice that one Shute was interested in the purchase of the flour, and had advanced money to Perrin for that purpose. On the llth of August, the defendants sold 1000 barrels of the flour by the direction of Perrin and Shute. On the 12th of August, Perrin committed an act of bankruptcy, by ab-[146]-seoHding from Liverpool; and, on the 18th of that month, the defendants sold the remaining 1020 barrels of flour by the direction of Shute. On the loth of October, a petition in bankruptcy was presented to that Court, upon which Perrin was adjudged a bankrupt The learned Judge left it to the jury to say, whether the flour was sold by the defendants on account of Perrin and Shute, or on account of Perrin...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • (1) Kashif Ahmed v (1) David Ingram
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 19 March 2018
    ...tenants were still alive ( Cooper v. Chitty, 1 Burr. 20; Fox v. Hanbury, 2 Cowp. 445; Fraser v. Kershaw, 2 K. & J. 496; Morgan v. Marquis, 9 Exch. 145); where the solvent joint tenant had died in the interim ( Smith v. Stokes, 1 East 363); and where it was the debtor who had died ( In re Pa......
  • Re Dennis (a Bankrupt)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 4 April 1995
    ...under it; the bankrupt's property vested in the assignees under the commission instead, and it did so immediately upon execution. 70 In Morgan v Marquis (1853) 9 Exch. 144 the defendants were in possession of some flour for sale on the instructions of one Perrin. The jury found that the sal......
  • Re Palmer, decd. (A Debtor)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • Invalid date
  • Gavin Hilary Palmer Estate Trustee v Palmer
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • Invalid date
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT