R v Leith; King, Assignee of Langman, v Leith
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1787 |
| Year | 1787 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
7 cases
-
United Australia Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd
...implied contract to his principal to repay. Even here in the relatively more recent cases where this explanation is given, by Grose J. in King v. Leith (1787) 2 T.R. at p. 145, and in Marsh v. Keating (1834) 1 Bing. N.C. at p. 215 by Park J. in delivering the opinion of the Judges in the Ho......
-
Clarke v Ryall
...of the arrest, and then operates, as if the arrest were a complete act of bankruptcy in itself: " per Ashhurst, J., in King v. Leith, '2 T. R. 141 ; Barnard v. Palmer, 1 Camp. 509 ; Glassington v. Rawlins, 3 East, 407 ; Thomas v. Desanges, 2 B. & A. 586. But now by 6 G. 4, c. 16, s. 5, if a......
-
Edwards and Another, Assignees of Maurice, a Bankrupt v Gabriel, Phillips and Roby
...c. 16. The 21 Jac. 1, c 19, s 6, rendered the lying in prison for debt for two months an act of bankruptcy, and the case of King v Leith (2 T. R. 141, 144), to which I have already referred, decided that when the two months expired the bankruptcy related back to the day of arrest, and that ......
-
Spratt and Another, Assignees of Lynch, a Bankrupt, v Hobhouse, Bart., and Others
...Defendants not to pay that draft, it ia sufficient that they had probable grounds for believing that Lynch was bankrupt, King v. Leith (2 T. R. 141); it was not necessary they should have formal notice of a commission against him. That they [177] had such probable grounds is clear from thei......
Request a trial to view additional results