Revill v Sattergit
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 July 1816 |
| Date | 22 July 1816 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 301
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
L EEVILL V. SATTIRGIT 301 [451] York Summer Assizes, 56 George III., 1816. July 22, 1816. revill v. sattebgit. (In an action brought by a parent for the seduction of his daughter, it is not necessary, to sustain the action, that the daughter should be produced as a witness at the trial.) This was an action for the seduction of the plaintiff's daughter. The only point was the manner in which the cause was conducted on the part of the plaintiff, who was a working man, and had nine children The eldest, for whose seduction the present action was brought, had been at service in the family of the defendant's bankrupt by such act, but without the privity or concurrence of his creditors ; or upon an act committed by the trader in concert with his creditors With respect to the first point: If the act of bankruptcy, on which the commission is sought to be sustained, be an act, moving solely from the bankrupt, as a denial to a creditor, or an assignment by deed of all hia effects, though such denial or assignment should be with the intent [447] of making himself a bankrupt, it is not easy to see how an objection could be raised to such act, as incapable of supporting a commission. The bankrupt cannot object to such act himself he is of necessity concluded by it. Who then is to impeach it ? A case is put, which is very frequently resorted to as an act for sustaining a commission of bankrupt. A trader conveys all his property by deed to a particular creditor, or to a certain number of creditors , or to trustees, for the satisfaction of his creditors universally ; all of which acts are acts of bankruptcy. The trader knows that he is committing an act of bankruptcy , he knows that the deed is void, and he intends that it should be void at the time of execution. Can such deed, it is said, sustain a commission ? Can such deed (which constitutes an act of bankruptcy upon these two grounds only, 1. Either that it is a fraudulent preference of particular creditors; or, 2 That it places his propeity under a distribution different from that ordained by the bankrupt laws, and which deed is not intended by the bankrupt to operate in either of those ways, but to exclude the power of fraudulent preference on one hand, and to let in the operation oi the bankrupt laws on the other) ; can such deed, it is demanded, be sufficient to uphold a commission ? The case has not arisen ; but when it shall arise, we presume that such act would support a commission That a commission of bankrupt may be supported, notwithstanding the privity of the bankrupt, is now settled. Ex parte Edmonson, 1 Ves jun. 303. The only objection is, to an act concerted with a creditor. Now, it is no objection to any act, as an act of bankruptcy, that the bankrupt intended it to be so , and this rule is founded upon manifest and sufficient grounds , far, in the first place, it may be the only means of...
To continue reading
Request your trial