Schondler and another, Assignees of Davis, A Bankrupt, v Wace
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 December 1808 |
| Date | 05 December 1808 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 1031
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
1CAMP.487. SCHONDLER V. WAGE 1031 [487] Monday, Dec. 5, 1808. ScHQJfDLER AND ANOTHER, ASSIGNEES OF DAVIS, A BANKRUPT, V. WAGE. (A policy of insurance effected by a bankrupt upon his own life at an annual premium, paases to his assignees, however small the apparent value of it may be at the time of his bankruptcy, and although there are considerable arrears of premium then due upon it; and if, instead of delivering it up as part of his effects, he secretly assigns it to another person, who pays the arrears of the premium, and upon the death of the bankrupt receives the sum insured, this sum, deducting the amount of the arrears so paid, mav be recovered by the assignees as money had and received to their use.) Money had and received to the use of the plaintiffs as assignees.-Plea, the general issue. Davisj before his bankruptcy, had effected a policy of insurance upon his own life with the Amicable Insurance Society. This he did not deliver up, or discover to the commissioners or his assignees. At the time of his last examination, there were five quarters of the premium in arrear ; and unless these had been very soon paid, the policy would have been forfeited. By the rules of the Amicable Society, such policies being assignable, Davis offered to assign this policy to one Gardiner for the 16th part of a lottery ticket. This offer was accepted , and Gardiner having paid up the arrears, assigned the policy for a valuable consideration to the defendant Davis dying immediately after, at the age of forty, the defendant received the sum for which the policy upon his bfe had been effected. Paik, for the assignees, contended, that this was clearly money had and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clack v Holland
...their title to the policies, as they ought to have done, by giving notice to the office, and they must be postponed; Schondler v. Wace (1 Campb. 487); West v. Reid (2 Hare, 249); Martin v. Sedgwick (9 Beav. 333). Under all the circumstances, Holland was not bound to keep the two policies on......
-
West v Reid
...give effect to their lien upon it for the premiums paid by West and his estate, and the interest upon such premiums: Schmdler v. Wace (1 Camp. 487); Gibson v. Overbury (7 Mees. & Wels. 555); Burridge v. Bow (1 Y. & Coll. C. C. 183). Mr. Kenyon Parker and Mr. Sidebottom, for the assignees of......
-
Lessee Orr v Stevenson
...Doe dem. Gilbert v. RossENR 7 M. & W.120. Rutter v. Chapman 8 M. &. W. 37 Denham v. DormerENR cited in 2 And. 84. Schondler v. WaceENR 1 Camp. 487. Hepper v. Marshall 9 B. Moore, 721. Whittingham's caseUNK 8 Rep. 44. Wentworth's caseENR 3 Dyer, 348.a, pl. 13. Wigg v. WiggENR 1 Atk. 383. Hod......
- McCracken v Phoenix Constructions (Queensland) Pty Ltd