Row v Dawson

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date27 November 1749
Date27 November 1749
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 27 E.R. 1064

HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY

Row
and
Dawson

S. C. 1 Wh. & T. L. C. (7th ed.), 93. See Addison v. Cox, 1872, L. R. 8 Ch. 80; Brice v. Bannister, 1878, 3 Q. B. D. 573.

Row v. dawson, Nov. 27,1749. [S. C. 1 Wh. & T. L. 0. (7th ed.), 93. See Addison v. Cox, 1872, L. R. 8 Ch. 80; Brice v. Bannister, 1878, 3 Q. B. D. 573.] A. borrows money of B. and gives him a draft upon a fund due to A. out of the Exchequer, and becomes bankrupt; this is an assignment thereof to B. for valuable consideration, which shall prevail against the general assignees under the commission of bankruptcy. [Supplement, 160.] Tonson and Cowdery lent money to Gibson, who made a draft on Swinburn, the deputy of Horace Walpole, viz. " Out of the money due to me from Horace Walpole out of the Exchequer, and what will be due at Michaelmas pay to Tonson 400, and to Cowdery 200 value received." Gibson became bankrupt: and the question was, whether the defendants Tonson and the executors of Cowdery were first intitled by a specific lien upon this sum due to the estate of Gibson ; or whether the plaintiffs the assignees under the commission are intitled to have the whole sum paid to them ; it being insisted for them, that this draft was in nature of a bill of exchange, and that the property was not divested out of J;he bankrupt at the time of the bankruptcy in law or equity 1 [332] Lord Chancellor. At first I a little doubted about ray own jurisdiction: and whether the plaintiffs ought not to have gone into the Exchequer, as being a court of revenue ; for this is not a personal credit given to, or demand upon the officer : but to be paid out of that money issued out of the Exchequer to the officer; and this is on warrant, to be paid out of the revenue of the crown for public services. But there is something in the present case delivering it from that: the officer admits, he has received a sum of money applicable to this demand, which brings it to the old case of a liberate, which a person has under the great seal for the payment of money : upon admission that the officer had money in his hands applicable to the payment, and proof thereof, that would give courts of law a jurisdiction, so that an action of debt might be maintained on the liberate. This demand, and the instrument under which the defendants claim, is not a bill of exchange, but a draft; not to pay generally, but out of his particular fund, which creates no personal demand : therefore not a draft on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Camdex International Ltd v Bank of Zambia
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • April 3, 1996
    ...as an example of a chose in action which though not assignable at common law was always regarded as assignable in equity. He referred to Row v Dawson 1 Ves Sen 331 as showing the view taken by the Courts of Equity: "They admitted the title of an assignee of a debt, regarding it as a piece o......
  • Hutchinson and Another, Assignees of Hunt, a Bankrupt, against Heyworth and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the Queen's Bench
    • December 1, 1838
    ...the borrowing and the appropriation of the particular fund for payment were parcels of one and the same contract. So, in Bow v. Dawson (1 Ves. sen. 331), the bankrupt had borrowed money, and made a draft in favour of the lenders, upon a fund in the Exchequer to which he had a claim ; and th......
  • Adams v Morgan
    • Ireland
    • Chancery Division (Ireland)
    • February 26, 1883
    ...(1) 5 De G. M. & G. 320. Appeal. Before LAW, C., SIR E. SULLIVAN, M. R., and FITZ GIBBON, L. J. ADAMS and MORGAN Row v. DawsonENR 1 Ves. Sen. 331 [1749]. Yeates v. Groves 1 Ves. 280. Lett v. MorrisENR 4 Sim. 607. Watson v. Duke of Wellington 1 R. & My. 602. Diplock v. HammondUNK 5 D. G. M. ......
  • Belcher and Others, Assignees of Chapman, a Bankrupt, against Campbell and Another
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the Queen's Bench
    • July 9, 1845
    ...bankruptcy he acquired it; Tibbits v. George (5 A. & E. 107), Burn v. Carvalho(e), Hufchinson v. Heyworih (9 A. & E. 375), Row v, Dawsm (1 Ves. sen. 331), Yeates v. Groves (1 Ves. jun. 280), Bailey v. Cuhm-well (8 B. & C. 448), Crowfoot v. Gmney (9 Bing. 372). [Patteson J. Would (a) May 30t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT