The King v Lushington
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 June 1814 |
| Date | 25 June 1814 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 145 E.R. 1341
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER
the KiN v. lushinuton. Saturday, 25th June, 1814.-In reckoning the degrees allowed for proceedings in aid, the King's debtor not to be counted.-And the sheriff' may return and seize the debts due to the debtor in the third degree. Uaselee and Carr moved that ao much of the inquisition taken on tbe writ of extent issued in this cause, as related to the finding Mary Salter Dehany indebted to the defendants in the sum of 53951. 5s. and to the taking and seizing the same into his Majesty's hands, might be quashed. They stated, that Austen & Co. having been found by commission indebted to the Crown, an extent had issued against them, and by the inqui-[95]-sition taken on that extent Boldero fe Co. were found indebted to Austen & Co. in 29,0001. An extent then issued against Boldero & Co. when the Lushingtons were found indebted to them, and an extent having consequently issued against Lushington fe Co. this debt of Miss Dehany to them had been found by the Sheriff under the inquisition taken thereon ; and they submitted that Miss Dehany was not a debtor within the degrees allowed for proceedings in aid of the king's debtor, by the practice of the Court, and the rules made in Hilary term 15 Car. 1. According to those, debts may be found to the third degree, but not beyond (.), and therefore this debt from Miss Dehany, being in the fourth degree, ought not to have been found. (t) But the entry of an appearance may be withdrawn on motion to the Court for leave. (?/,) Ewm'a caw, 30 Cha. II. Parker, 259. 1342 THE KING V. BLACKETT 1 PRICE, 96. Dauncey, contra. This is moved on the behalf of Lushington, who is clearly within the degrees. thomson, Chief Baron. In computing the degrees the king's debtor is not to be reckoned. This debt therefore is within the degrees, and must come in aid. graham, Baron. If you could not touch debts in the third degree, the extent in aid would in many cases be nugatory, and property to a great amount might escape. The sheriff here is directed to malte a return of the debts due to the [96] Lushingtons, and he returns Dehany indebted, as he was bound to do. kichakds, Baron, of the same opinion. ; Motion refused (;). (x) Hilary Term, 54 Geo. III. Tltc King v. Rlnckett ami Another, AmdifiieeK of Lushinr/ton.-The Court will not, in exercise of its equitable jurisdiction over extents, grant a writ of amoveas manna, to release property seized under an extent in aid against a debtor in a more remote degree, on the ground that the debt which had been found on the original commission to be due to the King's debtor, has been subsequently satisfied, by the payment of bills of exchange deposited with him for securing that debt; if it appear that those bills were not the bona fide property of the person depositing them, who thereby committed a breach of trust; because the Court will consider that the real proprietors of the bills have a paramount claim on the person with whom they had been so deposited, if he has been satisfied his debt by other means. And as between the different debtors to the King's debtor, no one of them has an...
To continue reading
Request your trial