Smith v Smith and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1833 |
| Date | 01 January 1833 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 149 E.R. 745
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 4 Tyr. 52, and (nomine Smith v. Masterman) 3 L. J. Ex. 42. Adopted, Willes v. Greenhill, 1861, 4 De G. F. & J. 150, affirming 20 Beav. 376, 387. Discussed, Ward v. Duncombe, [1893] A. C. 379. Referred to, In re Wyatt; White v. Ellis [1892] 1 Ch. 196; Lloyd's Bank v. Pearson, [1901] 1 Ch. 868.
sjiith v. smith and othuks. Exch. of Pleas. 1833.-A. made advances to B., a trader, and afterwards took from him as a security an assignment of an equitable life interest in stock and other property, standing in the name of, and vested in, three trustees under a marriage settlement. There being rumours about the solvency of B., A., in the course of conversation, subsequently to the assignment, and not with a view of giving validity to his security, mentioned to one of the trustees who was not the acting trustee, that he was secured by the assigu- Ex. DiV. V.-24* 746 SMITH V. SMITH 2C.&K.1K, merit:-Held, that this communication was a sufficient notice to prevent the interest of B. passing to his assignees on his bankruptcy, as property in his order and disposition. [&. G. 4 Tyr. 52, and (nomine Smith v. Master-man) 3 L. J. Ex. 42. Adopted, failles v, Gmenhill, 1861, 4 De G. F. & J. 150, affirming 29 I3eav. 37(5, 387. Discussed, Ward v. Dunmm/ie, [1893] A, C. 379. Referred to, In re IVyatt; White, v. Kills [1892] 1 Ch. 196 ; Lloyd's Bank v. Pearson, [1901] 1 Ch. 868.] This was a cause on the equity side of the Court, [t appeared, that, in and prior to the year 1839, the plaintiff', George Robert Smith, hud advanced to Mr. Maberley considerable sums of money. In June, 18-9, he took as security for the same an assignment of Mr. Maberley's life interest under his marriage settlement, in stock standing in the names of the three trustees of the settlement, and a sum of money charged on a landed estate, which was also vested in the trustees of the settlement. Shortly after the assignment of the life interest to the plaintiff, there were rumours that Mr. Maberley's affairs were not prosperous; and the plaintiff, in the course of a conversation with Mr. John Smith, one of the trustees, but who was not the acting trustee, communicated to him that he, the plaintiff, had made advances to Mr. Maberley, and that he was secured by the assignment. This communication was not made with any view of giving validity to the assignment. Mr. Maberley's embarrassments having continued to increase...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Willes v Greenhill
...1 Ves. sen. 348) ; Stevens v. Savage (1 Ves. jun. 154) ; Pwrdew v. Jackson (1 Russ. 1) ; Cooper v. Fynmore (3 Russ. 60) ; Smith v. Smith (2 Cr. & M. 231) ; Exparte Smtlton (1 De G. & J. 163) ; Timsm v. Ramsbottom (2 Kee. 35) ; Rice v. Rice, (2 Drew. 73) ; and Mem v. Bell (1 Hare, 86). [160]......
-
Graham and Another, Assignees of John Barugh, a Bankrupt v Furber
...the reputed-ownership of the bankrupt with the consent of the true owner. In the case of Smith v. Smith, as reported in 4 Tyrwh. 52, and 2 C. & M. 231, it is stated that the question whether the property came within the clause of the bankrupt act, s. 72, was very elaborately argued, though ......
-
Tibbits, Assignee of Francis Thompson, an Insolvent Debtor, against George
...and Geddes(b). [Patteson J. Knowledge is enough, from whatever quarter obtained; a formal notice is not necessary ; Smith v. Smith (2 Cr. & M. 231. 4 Tyrwh. 52).] A formal notice is not indeed necessary : but the holder must have knowledge in some way ; otherwise the insolvent would have a ......
-
Bell v The London and North-Western Railway Company
...(4 Myl. & Cr. 129); Burn v. Cm-valho (Ib. 690) ; Lett v. Morris (4 Sim. 607) ; Tibhits v. Gem-ge (5 Ad. & E. 107) ; Smith v. Smith (2 C. & M. 231) ; Ex parts Smith (3 Swan. 392) ; Raw v. Daivsm 1 Ves. sen. 331) ; Watson v. The Luke of Wellington (1 R. & M. 602). the master of the rolls rese......