Turquand and Others, Assignees of William Knight, a Bankrupt, against John Knight
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1836 |
| Date | 01 January 1836 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 685
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 2 Gale, 192; 6 L. J. Ex. 4.
turquand and OfHEKS, Assignees of William Knight, a Bankrupt, against JOHN KNIGHT. Exch. of Pleas. LS30.-Trover for a lease by the assignees of a bankrupt. Plea, that before the bankruptcy the bankrupt deposited the lease with the defendant as a collateral security for money which the bankrupt then owed him. At the trial, the plaintiffs attempted to shew that the lease was deposited after the act of bankruptcy, and for that purpose called a witness, who had been the attorney for the bankrupt after the act of bankruptcy, and had been applied to by him to raise him money. It was then proposed to ask him whether the bankrupt had not the lease in his possession at that time :-Held, that this was privileged from disclosure, as being a confidential communication made to him relative to his character as an attorney. [S. C. 2 Gale, 192; 6 L. J. Ex. 4.] Trover for the lease of a public-house, dated the 2fith of August, 1835, granted by one Calvert to William Knight, the bankrupt. (a)1 Though the reason why the opposite party shall not traverse the express colour given is not stated in the books, it would appear to be this ; that by denying the matter alleged by way of colour, the facts of the case would stand still more strongly jigainst the traverser. Thus, if in the principal case the plaintiff had denied the delivery to Richard Roe, he would have left the title of the defendant to the trees unimpeached, and would, in effect, have admitted that he had brought an action against the defendant for converting his, the defendant's owa trees. (b) If the plaintiff' had declared in trespass quare clausum fregit, be would have directly raised the real point in dispute. The defendant must have denied the plaintiffs possession of the close, and the affirmative of the issue would have been on the plaintiff, who would then have obtained the opening and the reply. (a)2 And see Carr v. Hincldi/, 4 B. & Cr. 547 ; 7 Dow. & Ky. 42; Muggn v. Ainex, ] M. & Payne, 294; 4 Bingh. 470; Paramore v. Johnson, 1 Ld. Kaym. 566 ; Hallot v. Birt, 1 Ld. Kaym. 218; Skinner, 674; Dr. Leyfidd's case, 10 Co. Eep. 88, 90 a., 91 b.; 6 Nev. & Man. 280, 11. ; Tunno v. Morris, 2 C. M. & K. 298 ; 8dly v. Neish, ibid. 355; Com. dig. tit. Pleader (E), 13, 14; ibid. (3 M.) 40, 41. 686 TURQUAND V. KNTOHT 2 M. &W. 99. F99]...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Russell v Jackson
...(1 Ph. 91), Wheatky v. Williams (1 M. & W. 533), Doe v. Harris (5 Car.. & Pay. 592), Bex v. Withers (2 Camp. 578), Turquand.v. Knight (2 M. & W, 98); Taylor on Evidence, vol. 1, p. 627 ; Phillipps on Evidence, vol. 1, p. 171, 9th edik Against the motion to suppress the depositions : Bramwel......
-
Between Henry Desborough, Plaintiff; and Sir William Rawlins, Knight, John Richards, Henry Porter Smith, Albert William Beetham, and Francis Betham, Defendants
...Ves. 225), Thorpe v. Macauleif (5 Mad. 218), Glynn v. Houston (1 Keen, 329), Wheatley v. Williams (1 Mees. & W. 533), Turywwlv. Knight (2 Mees. & W. 98), Rex v. Withers (2 Campb. 578), Doe ilem. Miellard v. Harm {5 Car. & Payne, 592). Mr. Wigram, in reply. the lord chancellor [Cottenham]. S......
-
Caldbeck v Boon
...3 My. & Cr. 515. Carpmael v. PowisENR 1 Phil. 687. Jones v. PughENR 1 Phil. 96. Greenough v. Gaskell 1 M. & K. 98. Turquand v. KnightENR 2 M. & W. 98. Wheatley v. WilliamsENR 1 M. & W. 533, 540. Tindal v. BellENR 11 M. & W. 228. Beech v. JonesENR 5 C. B. 696. Walker v. HattonENR 10 M. & W. ......
-
Warde v Warde
...of the argument, referred to the cases of Greenmigh v. Gaskell (1 Myl. & K. 98), In re Aittdn (4 B. & A. 47), and Turquand v. Knight (2 M. & W. 98).] Mr. Eolt and Mr. Erskine, for the Defendant C. T. Warde. It matters not whether the communications which passed between the Defendants were m......