Nelson v Barter
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 June 1864 |
| Date | 20 June 1864 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 71 E.R. 493
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
Affirmed, 33 L. J. Ch. 705; 10 Jur. (N. S.) 832.
Interpleader. Practice. Foreign Attachment. Debt in Custodi Legis.
2H. &M.334. NELSON V. BARTER 493 [334] nelson v. barter. May 23, June 20, 1864. [Affirmed, 33 L. J. Ch. 705; 10 Jur. (N. S.) 832.] Interpleader. Practice. Foreign Attachment. Debt in Ciisloilul, Legis. Where in an. interpleader suit there are several Plaintiff's residing in different parts of the country, arid there is evidence that they all conducted chair business through the same agent in London and solicitor, the Court will allow the bill to be filed upon an affidavit of no collusion by such agent and solicitor only, but will not thereupon grant the ordinary injunction till the hearing, but merely au interim order for a reasonable time, upon an understanding that the Plaintiffs will themselves in the meantime make the requisite affidavit. It is not so absolutely clear that a debt, the subject of an action, upon which judgment has not been recovered, is protected from foreign atcachment, as to make it the duty of the debtor to disregard such attachment and pay the debt, after judgment, to the judgment creditors or his assignees. A mere stakeholder is justified, if there be the slightest doubt or risk arising from conflicting claims, in calling upon the person really interested on either side to indemnify him against such risk, and, if he refuse or neglect to do so, in filing a bill of interpleader. This was a bill of interpleader. The Plaintiffs were underwriters, carrying on business at Lloyds. The bill stated that the Plaintiffs had underwritten a curtain vessel called the Geneva, for the sum. of 600, in favour of a person named Wilson. The Geneva was lost at sea, and thereupon Wilson brought an action on the policy, which was resisted by the Plaintiffs. The action was tried orr the 16th oE February 1864, before Mr. Justice Shee, when a verdict was found for the Plaintiff at law for the whole sum claimed, but judgment was stayed until the fifth day of the sittings after Easter term, in order to enable the Defendants at law (the Plaintiffs in equity) to move for a new trial or to reduce the damages. On the same 16th of February the Defendants, Early and Smith, gave notice to the Plaintiff's that the debt due to Wilson had beerr assigned by him to them. On the 20th of the same month the Plaintiffs were served with a foreign attachment, issuing out of the Lord Mayor's Court of the City of London, at the suit of the Defendants, Barter and Cummins, attaching all Wilson's property in their hands, and on the 25th of the same month they were served with the usual summons calling upon them to shew cause on the 20th of March then next why the said sum of 600 should not be attached in their harrds as the proper moneys of John Wilson. [335] Thereupon the Plaintiffs' solicitors wrote to the solicitors of the Defendants, Early and Smith, the following letter :- " Dear Sirs,-As solicitors for Messrs. Swarm, Wilson, Lumsden, Schwann, Kell and Graves (the Plaintiffs), we beg to inform you that these gentleman have been served with attachments irr the Lord Mayor's Court, London, dated the 20th of February 1864, at the suits of Barter and Cummins, Plaintiffs, against John Wilson, Defendant, and which attachments now lie at our office, open for your inspection. Will you be good enough to inform us if you wish the above-named gentlemen to adopt any and what proceedings in respect of the above attachments, and, if so, if you are ready and willing to guarantee them against all loss, costs and damages in respect of any proceedings they may take in reference thereto?" In answer to this letter, the Defendants' solicitors replied as follows :- " Dear Sirs,-It does not appear to us that our clients need concern themselves with the attachments mentioned...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Great Southern and Western Railway Company v Corry and Another
...THE GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY and CORRY AND ANOTHER Nelson v. BarterENR 2 H. & M. 334. Wood v. LyneENR 4 De G. & Sm. 16. Atkinson v. MackrethELR L. R. 2 Eq. 570. Russell v. The East Anglian Railway Company 3 Mƒ€™N. & G. 104. Myers v. ......
-
Laing v Zeden
...not be put to any expense in consequence of a dispute between two parties as to the goods in our hands. They cited Nelson v. Barter (2 H. & M, 334; 10 L. Rep. N.3. 743.) Without calling for a reply, Lord Justice James said: I am of opinion that the decision of the Vice Chancellor cannot be ......