Re Soltykoff. ex parte Margrett
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1891 |
| Date | 1891 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Bankruptcy - Petitioning Creditor's Debt - Bill of Exchange - Infant -
An infant cannot bind himself by the acceptance of a bill of exchange, even though the bill is given for the price of necessaries supplied to him during infancy.
APPEAL against the dismissal of a bankruptcy petition presented against Prince Alexis Soltykoff.
The petitioner was the indorsee of some bills of exchange which had been accepted by the Prince when he was an infant. There was evidence that the bills had been given in payment for goods supplied to the Prince by the drawer. It was assumed for the purpose of the argument that the goods were necessaries.
The registrar held that an infant could not make himself liable by accepting a bill of exchange, even though he accepted the bill in order to pay for necessaries supplied to him by the drawer.
The petitioner appealed.
Bigham, Q.C., and Henry Kisch, for the appellant. No doubt the decided cases support the registrar's decision: Williams v. HarrisonF1; Trueman v. HurstF2; Bartlett v. EmeryF3; Williamson v. WattsF4; Stevens v. JacksonF5; Bateman v. KingstonF6; but they are not decisions of a Court of Appeal, and are not binding on this Court.
Moreover, in Williams v. HarrisonF1, it is said in the judgment of the Court, “the bill of exchange was drawn in course of trade, and not for any necessaries,” which seems to imply that, if the bill had been for necessaries, the infant would have been bound by his acceptance of it.
In the present case the bills were given in payment for necessaries, and an infant can make himself liable for necessaries. The bills are in substance part of a contract for the supply of necessaries, and therefore the Infants' Relief Act, 1874, s. 1, does not apply.F7 Nor is s. 22 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, a bar to the liability of an infant on a bill of exchange accepted by him in payment for necessaries; that section has no application to such a case.
Finlay, Q.C., and Herbert Reed, for the respondent, were not called upon.
LORD ESHER, M.R. The claim of the petitioning creditor is founded upon a debt alleged to be due to him as the indorsee of some bills of exchange accepted by the respondent, who at the time of the acceptance was an infant. The petitioner is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Star Cruise Services Ltd v Overseas Union Bank Ltd
...2 KB 611 (refd) Read v Anderson (1884) 13 QBD 779 (refd) Richardson v Moncrieffe (1926) 43 TLR 32 (refd) Soltykoff, In re;ex p Margrett [1891] 1 QB 413 (refd) Swan v Bank of Scotland (1836) 10 Bligh NS 627; 6 ER 231 (refd) William Hill (Park Lane) Ltd v Rose [1948] 2 All ER 1107; (1948) 65 ......
-
Norman Aviation Flight Training Academy Inc. v Smith et Al
...The cases cited are against the appellant, and so is the established principle of English law [In re Soltykoff ex parte Margaret [1891] 1 Q.B. 413]. 35 The foregoing dictum is, in my opinion, sufficient to dispose of the arguments on the notes as they relate to the second applicant. The st......
-
Norman Aviation Flight Training Academy Inc. Claimant/Respondent v Leroy Smith Dulani Smith Defendants/Applicants [ECSC]
...the second applicant on the claim for his obligations on the notes. Asthe learned Master of the Rolls advised in the case of In re Soltykoff ex parte Margarett, the respondent can always pursue the claim against the second applicant on the agreement. 36 In respect of the first applicant, I ......
-
Norman Aviation Flight Training Academy Inc. Claimant/Respondent v Leroy Smith Dulani Smith Defendants/Applicants [ECSC]
...the second applicant on the claim for his obligations on the notes. As thelearned Master of the Rolls advised in the case of In re Soltykoff ex parte Margarett, the respondent can always pursue the claim against the second applicant on the agreement; 36 In respect of the first applicant, I ......