Stead and Others, Assignees of Moorhouse, v Gascoigne
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 November 1818 |
| Date | 07 November 1818 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 129 E.R. 488
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
stead and others, Assignees of Moorhouse, v. gascoigne. Nov. 7, 1818. If a sheriff legally take goods in execution, the proprietor whereof afterwards becomes a bankrupt, and the sheriff sells at one time, after the bankruptcy, enough to satisfy both that execution and also another execution, which being delivered to him after the bankruptcy, is void, the bankrupt's assignees may recover in trover for such of the goods as were sold after the sheriff had raised money enough to satisfy the first execution. This was an action of trover brought by the assignees of Moorhouse, a bankrupt, against the Defendant, who was sheriff of York, for the value of certain goods which he had taken in execution and sold. At the trial of this cause at the York Summer assizes, 1818, before Wood B., it appeared that an execution had issued at the suit of Jarrett, against the goods of Moorhouse for 1741., under which the Defendant, on the 6th July, made a seizure. An act of bankruptcy was committed by Moorhouse on the 18th July; arid on the 29th July, another execution at the suit of Kamsbottoin, was delivered to the sheriff. [528] The sheriff, who had for some time delayed to sell at the bankrupt's request, sold goods on (he 12th August to the amount of both executions. It was objected for the Defendant, that as he had made one entire seizure, and one entire sale, which was at all events good for so much as was requisite to satisfy Jarrett's execution, the action was misconceived, and that the assignees could not maintain trover, but ought to have brought their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilbraham v Snow
...So where the sheriff sells under an execution more than sufficient to satisfy the debt and costs, he is liable in trover for the excess. 8 Taunt. 527, Stead v. Gascoigne. 4 M. & Sc. 552, Batchdor v. Vyse.~\ (y) [It was settled, after much controversy, that a sheriff who had seized and sold ......
-
Hudson, Assignee of Henry, a Bankrupt, v M'Allen
...8 B. & C. 160; S. C. 2. Man. & R. 68. Moreland v. PellattENR 8 B. & C. 722. Woodland v. Fuller 11 A. & E. 859. Stead v. GascoyneENR 8 Taunt. 527. Kitchen v. Campbell 3 Wils. 307. Baker v. PettigrewUNK 2 Ir. Eq. Rep. 151. Wymer v. KembleENR 6 B. & C. 479. Taylor v. TaylorENR 5 B. & C. 392, 3......
-
Aldred and another, Assignees of John Brown, a Bankrupt v Sir Thomas Aston Clifford Constable Baronet, and Charles Brown
...aoon as the sheriff sold more than was requisite for James Brown's execution, he became liable in trover, according to Stead v. Gascoigne (8 Taunt. 527); and this view of the case is met by the new assignment. In Batchelor v. Fyse (b)1, Tindal C.J. said : " The law allows the sheriff to sei......
-
Symonds v Mills
...J. and Dallas J. were absent, the former having left the court, the latter being ill. (b) See I Brod. & Bing. 57. 488 STEAD f. GASCOIGNli 8 TAUNT. 527. 1401. 8s. The Plaintiff, who by the .award was entitled to receive the larger sum, bad brought an action for it in the Court of King's Benc......