Sharpe and Another, Assignees of Harrison an Insolvent, v Thomas
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 February 1830 |
| Date | 09 February 1830 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 130 E.R. 1341
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
sharpe and another, Assignees of Harrison, an Insolvent, v. thomas. Feb. 9, 1830. A warrant of attorney given to a particular creditor by one who at the time intends to take the benefit of the insolvent debtors' act, is a charge on property or a transfer of it by assignment within the thirty-second section of 7 G. 4, c. 57. By the 7 G. 4, c. 67, s. 32, it is enacted, " That if any prisoner who shall file his or her petition for his or her discharge under this act, shall, before his or her imprisonment, being in insolvent circumstances, voluntarily convey, assign, transfer, charge, deliver, or make over any estate real or personal, security for money, [417] bond, bill, note, money, property, goods, or effects whatsoever, to any creditor or creditors, or to any person or persons in trust for, or to or for the use, benefit, or advantage of any creditor or creditors, every such conveyance, assignment, transfer, charge, delivery, and making over, shall be deemed, and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and void as against the provisional or other assignee or assignees of such prisoner appointed under this act: provided always, that no such conveyance, assignment, transfer, charge, delivery, or making over, shall be so deemed fraudulent and void, unless made within three months before the commencement of such imprisonment, or with the view or intention by the party so conveying, assigning, transferring, charging, delivering, or making over, of petitioning the said court for his or her discharge from custody undei this act." Harrison, the insolvent, finding his affairs embarrassed, and having expressed intentions of taking the benefit of the insolvent debtors' act, called his creditors together on Friday, the 5th of January 1827, at Southampton, and gave instructions for an assignment of all his property to trustees in trust to pay his creditors at large 10s. ia the pound. The same night he went to London, and on Monday, the 8th, executed a warrant of attorney to his brother-in-law, the Defendant, to secure him 7001. and interest; the Defendant to be at liberty forthwith, or at any time thereafter to enter judgment and issue execution for the same. The Defendant entered up judgment on the 12th, issued execution on the 15th, and on the 22d had the whole of Harrison's goods and stock appraised to him at 3951. 12s. The other creditors got nothing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
James Jeffries and Others, - Appellants; John Biddle Alexander and Others, and Attorney General, - Respondents
...considered the act of the law, but the act of the party who had used the law as a mere tool to effect his purpose. So in Sharpe v. Thomas (6 Bing. 416) it was held that a warrant of attorney given by a man who intended to take the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors Act was a charge on his pro......
-
Pack, qui tam, Company, against Tarpley, Clerk
...late one of Moore v. Ramsden (7 A. & E. 898).] All these cases must be reconsidered if a mere sequestration is a charge. Sharpe v. Thomas (6 Bing. 416), was a case of liberal construction of a remedial statute, and went on the express ground [478] of fraud. If there had been no fraud, the d......
-
Richard Henry Billiter against Heathfield Young
...creditor, it may be an assignment, transfer, charge, or delivery or making over to such creditor, as was decided in Sharpe v. Thomas (6 Bing. 416). It seems more properly to fall under the description of an assignment, or transfer, than a charge. The only question remaining upon the hill of......