Morgan and Another, Assignees of T. Shirley, a Bankrupt, against Brundrett, Gent. one, &
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 June 1833 |
| Date | 05 June 1833 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 798
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 2 N. & M. 280; 2 L. J. K. B. 195. Referred to, Marks v. Feldman, 1870, L. R. 5 Q. B. 283.
[289] morgan AND another, Assignees of T. Shirley, a Bankrupt, against brundrett, gent, one, &c. Wednesday, June 5th, 1833. A party who seeks to avoid a payment, or transfer of goods, on the ground that it was voluntarily made by a trader in contemplation of bankruptcy, must shew, not merely that the trader was insolvent when it was made, but also that he then contemplated bankruptcy. [S. C. 2 N. & M. 280; 2 L. J. K. B. 195. Referred to, Marks v. Feldman, 1870, L. R. 5 Q. B. 283.] Trover for plate. Plea, not guilty. At the trial before Denman C.J., at the London sittings after last Michaelmas term, the following appeared to be the facts of the case:-The bankrupt bad carried on business as a wine merchant. In 1821, 10001., part of the money secured by certain policies of insurance effected on the life of one Kingsley with tbe Equitable Assurance Company, was, amongst other property, assigned by deed by the father of the bankrupt to the defendant and one Newman, as trustees, for the benefit of Mrs. Miles, a daughter of the settlor and sister of the bankrupt, and her children. The money secured by the policies having become payable by the falling in of the life in 1826, the bankrupt obtained the policies, and received the sums assured by them, amounting to 26691., from the insurance company. In 1830 an application was made by the husband of Mrs. Miles to the defendant to have the 10001. invested according to the settlement, and the bankrupt was applied to by the defendant to refund the 10001. for the purpose of enabling the defendant and his co-trustee to make the investment. On the 28th of June 1831 the solicitors of Mrs. Miles, by letter, called upon the defendant and his co-trustee to invest the 10001. for the benefit of Mr. and Mrs. Miles, threatening in default of their so doing, to file a bill in equity against them ; and on the 3d of August 1831 a bill was accordingly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Miles against the bankrupt and the defendant and [290] his co-trustee, calling for an investment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. On the 4th of August there was a meeting of the bankrupt's creditors at his own counting-house, and another on the 18th. The defendant was not present at either. On the 10th of August no appearance having been entered for the defendant in the Chancery suit, the solicitors for the plaintiff in that suit wrote to the defendant, stating that they had issued an attachment against the bankrupt for non-appearance. The contents of that letter were communicated the next day to the bankrupt by the defendant, and he told the bankrupt that the costs and 10001. must be paid by him eventually, and urged him to pay the money immediately. Another meeting of creditors of the 5B.&AD.291. MORGAN V. BEUNDRETT 799 bankrupt took place on the 23d of August, at which the defendant attended in the character of solicitor to the bankrupt. The defendant did not then claim to be a creditor, but the bankrupt intimated that a negotiation for a partnership was in progress between...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re Matthews (F P and C H) Ltd
... ... "), in a creditors' voluntary winding-up, against the order of Mr. Justice Nourse made on 15th ... 1976 the company received two cheques, one for £1,492.37 and the other for £16,622.25. He ... certain definite tests, namely, that the bankrupt should have been at the time unable to pay his ... In Morgan v. Brundrett (1832) 2 B & Ad 798 at p.801, Mr ... to the exclusion, in whole or in part, of another and it postulates, in its very nature, a ... ...
-
Gass, A Bankrupt
...319. Brown v. KemptonUNK 19 L. J. C. P. 169. Strachan v. BartonENR 11 Ex. 647. Van Castell v. BookerENR 2 Ex. 691. Morgan v. BrundrettENR 5 B. & Ad. 289. Belcher v. PrittieENR 10 Bing. 408. Atkinson v. BrindallENR 2 Sc. 369. Gibson v. Muskett 4 M. & Gr. 160. Ex parte Simpson 1 De G. (Bank.)......
-
Ex parte the Rev John Hopkins Bailey and William Carter
...159), AUred v. Constable (4 Q. B. 674), Mogg v. Baker (4 M. & W. 348). [THE lord justice knioht bbuce referred to Morgan v. Brwndrett (5 B. & Ad. 289).] Moreover, it has never been decided that an assignment of choses in action in general can be an act of bankruptcy. Ex parte Simpson (De Ge......
-
Forster and Others, Assignees of Wm. Smith Batson, John Wilson, and John Langhorn, Bankrupts v Wilson and Another
...case as to entitle it to much weight. The bankrupt law has been better understood since ; and in the case of Morgan v. BnmdrM (5 B. & Ad. 289 ; 2 Nev. & M. 280), Parke, J., [201] in speaking of payments made in contemplation of bankruptcy, with intent to defeat the general distribution of e......