Porter and another, Assignees of Leete, a Bankrupt, v Walker
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 June 1840 |
| Date | 26 June 1840 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 133 E.R. 507
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 1 Scott, N. R. 568; 9 L. J. C. P. 334.
porter and another, Assignees of Leete, a Bankrupt, v. walker. June 26, 1840. [S. C. 1 Scott, N. E. 668; 9 L. J. C. P. 334.] In assumpsit by assignees for money had and received to their use after the bankruptcy, the defendant pleaded, non assumpsit, and that the plaintiffs were not assignees, and gave notice to dispute the act of bankruptcy upon which the party was declared a bankrupt. The plaintiffs proved an act of bankruptcy and the receipt of money belonging to the estate, between the act of bankruptcy and the fiat: Held, that in the absence of proof of any other act of bankruptcy, the defendant, by giving notice to dispute the act of bankruptcy only, must be taken to have admitted a trading and a petitioning creditor's debt, coexistent with the act of bankruptcy proved.- Euled, at nisi prius, by Littledale J., that an assignment by an innkeeper of all the furniture and other effects at the inn (except his stock in trade, money, and book-debts) to a creditor, in trust to sell and pay himself, returning the surplus to the innkeeper, inasmuch as it disabled the latter from carrying on his business, amounted to an act of bankruptcy, if the party were insolvent at the time of the assignment; which ruling was not afterwards questioned. Assumpsit for money had and received by the defendant, after the bankruptcy, to the use of the plaintiffs, as assignees, and upon an account stated between the defendant and the plaintiffs, as assignees. In the (further and better) particulars of the plaintiffs' demand, it was stated that the action was brought to recover 2211. 14s. Id., the balance _due from the defendant to the plaintiffs, as assignees, after deducting 711. 17s. 6d. paid for rent and taxes, being the produce, after deducting as aforesaid, of the sale of the bankrupt's effects, at which the defendant acted as auctioneer, [687] on or about the month of March 1839, and for interest thereon, from the receipt thereof to the day of payment. (a) And see Plowd. 110 b.; Bac. Abr. Evidence (F). (d) Supra, 583, 589, n. (e) Ace. 3 Man. & Eyl. 223. 508 PORTER V. WALKER 1 MAN. &G.688. Pleas : first, non-assumpsit; secondly, that the plaintiffs were not, nor are, assignees of the estate and effects of the said Francis Leete, a bankrupt, in manner and form as the plaintiffs have alleged, With this plea the following notice was given :- " In the Common Pleas.-Between George Porter and William Turquand, assignees of the estate and effects of Francis Leete, a bankrupt, plaintiffs, and John Walker, defendant. " I hereby give you notice that I dispute the act of bankruptcy upon which the above-named Francis Leete was declared a bankrupt, and in which bankruptcy the above-named plaintiffs were chosen assignee, And I further give you notice that the plaintiffs will be held responsible for all acts or doings whatsoever at their suit. Dated the 2d day of January 1840.-Yours, &c. " james sawyek, Defendant's attorney, " 3, Bow Lane, Cheapside. " To Messrs. Brooksbank and Farn, plaintiff's attorneys or agents." At the trial before Littledale J. at the last assizes for the county of Essex, the following facts appeared. On the 21st of February 1839, Leete, who kept the Crown Inn at Chipping Ongar, executed an assignment of his furniture and other effects there, except the stock in trade, which Leete continued to use, his ready money and book debts, to the defendant (to whom he was indebted in 391. 10s., borrowed in December 1838), in trust to sell and to pay his own debts, and return the surplus to Leete. The sale took place in March, and produced 2931. lls. 7d.; the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goodricke v Taylor
...and that it did not tend to defeat or delay trade creditors, does not protect it; Smith v. Cannan (2 E. & B. 35); Porter v. Walker (1 Man. & G. 686). In Lindon v. Sharp (6 Man. & G. 895) there was pressure, but that did not save the transaction. Here, there could not be pressure : the bankr......