Nightingal et Al, Assignees of Mettivier, a Bankrupt, v Devisme
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 May 1770 |
| Date | 08 May 1770 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 98 E.R. 361
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
See 1 East, 13 n. 1 Doug. 222, 223. Fitzgib. 213. See also Annual Register, 15 vol. p. 119, by which it seems the assignees recovered a verdict against the defendant for the value of the stock.
nightengal et al., Assignees of Mettivier, a Bankrupt, versus devisme. (S. C. 2 Bl. 684.) Tuesday 8th May 1770. Action for money had and received will not lie for a transfer of stock. [See 1 East, 13 n. 1 Doug. 222, 223. Fitzgib. 213. See also Annual Register, 15 vol. p. 119, by which it seems the assignees recovered a verdict against the defendant for the value of the stock.] This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiffs as assignees of the effects of Paul Mettivier, a bankrupt, against the defendant. The declaration contained three counts-1st. An indebitatus assumpsit, for £2000 for money lent and advanced by the plaintiffs, as assignees, to the defendant, at his request; 2d. Indebitatus assumpsit, for £2000, for money had and received by the defendant, to the use of the plaintiff, as assignees; 3d. Indebitatus assumpsit, for £2000 for money paid laid out and expended by the plaintiffs, as assignees, for the defendant, at his request: to the plaintiffs damage, of £2000. To which declaration, the defendant pleaded " iion assumpsit:" and thereupon issue was joined. The cause was tried at Guildhall, after Michaelmas term last, before Lord Mansfield: when a verdict was given for the plaintiffs, with £1170 damages, and 40s. costs; subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case. Case. The bankrupt Mettivier, being a trader, committed an act of bankruptcy upon the 12th of April 1769 : and a commission of bankruptcy issued against him, at the petition of a creditor for £100 and upwards; and his effects were duly assigned to the plaintiffs. On the 17th of April, Mettivier transferred to the defendant Devisme £500 East India Stock; which £500 East India Stock had been transferred from the defendant Devisme to the said bankrupt Mettivier upon the 5th of October preceding, and for which the said bankrupt Mettivier had given the defendant a note for £1370 : which transaction was, in the manner stated in the defendant's deposition herein after set forth, taken under the said commission. " William Devisme, of Lothbury London * Walburghv. Saltonstal, Sir T.Jones, 149. 1 Ventr. 362. V. ante, vol. 2, p. 964. t V. ante, pa. 967. K. B. xxvn.-12* 362 NIGHTINGAL V. DEVISME 8 BURR. MM. merchant, being sworn and examined on the day and year and at the place first above written, upon his [2590] oath saith, that in the month (or latter end) of September last, deponent applied to Paul Mettivier, the person against...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sempra Metals (formerly Metallgesellschaft Ltd) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue
...him for the use had of money had and received. Professor Birks points out that Lord Mansfield made clear in Nightingale v. Bevisme (1770) 5 Burr. 2589 (citing Moses v. Macferlan (1760) 2 Burr. 1005) that '"money received' meant what it said: the words could not be extended to other things"......
-
Cumberland, and Ann his Wife, against Kelley
...though it was argued that the stock ought to be estimated as so much money, into which it was [608] convertible. In NigUingall v. Devisme (5 Burr. 2589. 2 Sir W. Bl. 684. S. C.), it was held that the value of East India stock could be recovered in an action for money had and received, becau......
-
Maxwell against Jameson
...An equivalent for money is not however, in all cases, considered as money ; thus stock is not so considered, Nightingal v. {54] Devisme (5 Burr. 2589), Jones v. Brinley (1 East, 1). And to complete the offence of usury, where either money or money's worth must be received by the lender, a p......
-
Edgell v Curling
...J. The question is, whether it is a writ which the party was bound to obey.] This is, as was said by Lord Mansfield in Hart v. Preston (5 Burr. 2589), " an [960] odious catching objection, and not to be by any means favoured." Sir T. Wilde Serjt., contrA,-after he had referred to fistwick v......