Shaw, Appellant, Beck and another, Respondents
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 January 1853 |
| Date | 17 January 1853 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 155 E.R. 1401
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
Referred to, Penn v. Jack, 1866, L R 2 Eq 317
SEX. 393 SHAW 1' BECK 1401 shaw, Appellant, beck and another, Respondent!, Jan 17, 1853-Upon the trial of an interpleadei issue m a county couit, foi the puipose of trying the title to certain goods taken in execution, the plaintiff, in suppoit of his title, gave in evidence a deed (which was valid upon the face of it) by which the execution debtor had assigned to him the goods in question, but the witness called to prove the execution of the deed was cross-examined by the defendants, with a view to shew that the transaction was fraudulent, and the deed was theiefoie void -Held, that the plaintiff was not bound to give evidence in the first instance to establish the validity of the deed, although called upon by the judge to do so, and although the natuie of the defence appeared by the cioss-examination of the attesting witness, and therefoie, that the judge was wrong in lefusing to receive evidence in reply, to lebut a case of fraud set up by the defendants to invalidate the deed [Eeferred to, Penn v Jack, 186fa, I, It 2 Eq 3L7 ] This was an interpleader summons, which was tried at the County Court of Yorkshire held at Halifax, rn which the appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents were defendants The plaintiff sought to lecover certain goods mentioned in his particulars of claim, which had been taken by the defendants undei an execution issued from the county court against one John Melloi, on the 17th of Maich, 1852 At the trral, the plaintrffs attorney produced a deed (which was set out in the case) This deed, which was made on the 9th of March, 1853, between John Mellor (the judgment debtor of the defendants) and James Shaw (the plaintiff), after reciting that Mellor waa entitled to the stock in trade, household furniture, and other effects, contained in his dwelling-house, set forth in the schedule annexed, and also that he was indebted to the plaintiff in 501 15s , which ha was unable to pay , anrl that the plaintrfl had threatened legal proceedrngs agarnst hrm witrress-[393]-ed, tlut Mellor drd theteby assign to the plarntrtt the said stock in trade, household furniture, &c , and all books of account, debts, sums of money, and all documents for money, voucheis, and other documents, due, owing, ot belonging to Mellor, subject to a proviso for redemption, upon payment of 501 15s on the 9th of Aprrl, 1853, or at such earlier day as the plaintiff should appoint for the payment thereof, by notice in writing to that effect, to be given to Mellor, or left at his last place of abode in England, three clear yays before the time appointed for such earlier day of payment and that in the meantime interest should be paid on the principal sum Then followed a covenant by Melloi to pay the puncrpal sum and interest, with a proviso, enabling the plaintiff, upon default being made, to take possessiorr of the sard household furnituie, and the othei effects, and to reimburse himself the principal sum and niter est, and the expenses of the sale, and to pay over the surplus to Mellor The only witness adduced orr behalf of the plamtrtf was the clerk to the plaintiff's attorney, the attesting witness to the deed , and he proved its execution on the 9th of March by Melloi On cross-examination by the defendants' attotney, he stated that the deed was executed by Mellor about...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zainal bin Kuning and Others v Chan Sin Mian Michael and Another
...bin Samsudin [1994] 2 CLAS News 161 (refd) Roshan Lal Goel v Superintendent, Central Jail, LashkarAIR 1950 MB 83 (folld) Shaw v Beck (1853) 8 Exch 392; 155 ER 1401 (refd) Silas Saul Robin v Sunrise Investments (Pte) Ltd [1991] 1 SLR (R) 169; [1991] SLR 436 (refd) Subramaniam v PP [1956] 1 W......
-
Bridges Christopher v Public Prosecutor
...149 ER 481. This is so even where the defence was disclosed in the cross-examination of the plaintiff and his witnesses: Shaw v Beck (1853) 8 Exch 392. Generally, leave will be granted where the party has been misled or taken by surprise: Bigsby v Dickinson (1876) 4 Ch D 24. The same princi......
-
Bridges Christopher v Public Prosecutor
...149 ER 481. This is so even where the defence was disclosed in the cross-examination of the plaintiff and his witnesses: Shaw v Beck (1853) 8 Exch 392. Generally, leave will be granted where the party has been misled or taken by surprise: Bigsby v Dickinson (1876) 4 Ch D 24. The same princi......
-
Beevis v Dawson
... ... Simon Burns) appeared as Counsel on behalf of the Appellant (Plaintiff) ... Mr. J. PLATTS-MILLS (instructed by Mr. yril Saper) appeared as Counsel on behalf of the Respondents (Defendants) ... LORD JUSTICE SINGLETON ... the judge decides that ones course in preferable to another, his decision should in general be treated as final. He ... Baron Parke in the case which was also cited to us of Shaw v. Beck , reported in 8 Exchequer at page 393 ... That was ... ...