Silk aginst Osborn
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 305
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS.
Not applied, Elliot v. Clayton, 1851, 16 Q. B 581. Referred to, In re Ball, (1899) 2 I R. 313.
[140] Saturday, June 7th. silk against osborn. (An uncertificated bankrupt may maintain an action for work and labour, and materials found, and not for work and labour only.) [Not applied, Elliot v. Clayton, 1851, 16 Q. B 581. Referred to, In re Ball, [1899] 2 I R. 313.] This was an action of assumpsit for work and labour, and materials found, with the usual counts. Plea of the general issue. The plaintiff proved the declaration, the work done, and the materials furnished by him ; but in the course of the evidence it appeared that the plaintiff, at the time of the work and labour done, and then, was an uncertified bankrupt. Garrow for the defendant contended that he could not maintain the action, as all his effects belonged to his assignees (Hopkins v. Dewar, Bull. N. P. 153). The counsel for the plaintiff relied on the case of Chippindale v. Tomhnson, Trin 25 Geo. III., reported in Cook's Bankrupt Laws, 260, as decisive in the present instance, it being there expressly decided that an uncertificated bankrupt could maintain an action for work and labour. It was answered for the defendant, that that case only went the length of deciding that an uncertificated bankrupt could sue for and recover any sum due to him for his personal labour , but that the present case was not confined to personal labour only, but embraced a more extensive cause of action, namely, for ma-[141]-tenals found ; that these were a species of property which passed under his assignment, end in which he therefore had no property whatever ; so that, even admitting that the action was maintainable by the bankrupt for work and labour, that for materials found, the action could not be supported. Lord Keriyon said, that the case cited was certainly good law, and in principle strongly applicable to the present, that the assignees could not hire out the bankrupt to make a profit of las labour for their benefit, but that for such demands he should maintain an action in his own name , but his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re Ball
...33 L. J., C. P. 168; 15 C. B. (N. S.) 669. Palmer v. LockeELR 18 Ch. D. 381. Re ClarkeELR [1894] 3 Q. B. 393. Silk v. OsborneENR 1 Esp. 140. The New Land Corporation v. GrayELR [1892] 2 Ch. 138. Webb v. FoxENR 7 T. R. 391. Webb v. FoxENR 7 T. R. 397. VOL. II.] QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION. 313 IN......
-
Ord v Upton
...law; also the right of action does not pass in respect of wages earned by the bankrupt upon a hiring after the bankruptcy, ( Silk v Osborne 1 Esp. 140); also the right of action cannot be made to pass to the assignees in respect of contracts uncompleted at the time of bankruptcy, by their a......
-
George Frederick Mowlds, Attorney, v Robert Lynch Power
...Dance v. WyattENRUNK 6 Bing. 486; S. C. 4 Moo. & P. 201. Webb v. FoxENR 7 T. R. 391. Fowler v. DownENR 1 Bos. & P. 44. Silk v. OsbornENR 1 Esp. N. P. 140. Evans v. BrownENR 1 Esp. N. P. 169. Laroche v. WakemanENR 1 Peake, N. P. 190. Taylor v. Buchanan 4 B.& C. 419. Kitchen v. BartschENR 7 E......
-
Daniel Beckham, - Plaintiff in Error; William Walker Drake and John Surgey, - Defendants in Error
...law; also the right of action does not pass in respect of wages earned by the bankrupt upon a hiring after the bankruptcy, Silk v. Osborne (1 Esp. 140); also the right of action cannot be made to pass to the assignees in respect of contracts uncompleted at the time of bankruptcy, by their a......