Vacher and Another, Assignees of Window, against Cocks and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 June 1830 |
| Date | 18 June 1830 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 109 E.R. 741
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 8 L. J. K. B. O. S. 341: at Nisi Prius, Moo. & Mal. 353.
vachbk and another, Assignees of Window, against cocks and others. Friday, June 18th, 1830. A party producing, at the trial of a cause, a deed which has been some months in his possession, is not excused from proving the execution because he received such deed from the adverse party, who formerly claimed a benefit under it. The Judge, in summing up a case, directed the jury, if they came to a certain conclusion, to give their verdict for the plaintiff; but if they came to either of two other conclusions, which he pointed out, to find for the defendant and state on which ground their judgment was formed. The plaintiff then chose to be nonsuited : Held, that he was not entitled to a new trial on account of misdirection, if either of the two latter points was rightly put to the jury. An army agent was in the habit of advancing money to his customers on their pay and pensions, by checks on his bankers. Having overdrawn his banking account, he received a new credit from the bankers, and engaged, in return, to pay over to them, on receipt, the sums which usually came to his hands half-yearly from Government for the discharge of pensions. The agreement was not known to the persons who issued these funds. He committed an act of bankruptcy unknown to the bankers; and having subsequently received some Government remittances, paid them over according to the above arrangement, being indebted to the bankers in more than the amount. Quaere, whether such payments were justifiable, or a fraudulent preference1? Admitted, that if the sums were put into the bank merely to enable the bankrupt to go on in business for a time, these were not payments in fraud of creditors. [S. C: 8 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 341: at Nisi Prius, Moo. & Mai. 353.] Assumpsit for mxJaey had and received to the use of the bankrupt; the like to the use of the plaintiffs as assignees. Account stated with each. Plea, the general issue. At the trial before Lord^'.Tenterden C.J., at the sittings after Easter term 1829, at Guildhall, the folio wing Appeared to be the facts of the case :-The bankrupt was an army agent, and the defendants were his bankers. It was usual with Government to issue pay to officers, and pensions to widows, half yearly, in January and July; but 742 VACHER V. COCKS 1 B. & AD. 146. the officers and widows, who were customers of the bankrupt, frequently [146] obtained their payments from him before be received them from Government, In April 1827 he had considerably overdrawn his banking account; that account was then closed and a new one opened, the defendants advancing 75001., which they placed to his credit. Some evidence was given to shew that an agreement was made at this time between the bankrupt and the defendants, that they should pay the checks to be drawn by him in favour of his customers, before the half-yearly issues, and that the' whole of those issues received by him from Government should, immediately on receipt, be paid over to the defendants. The plaintiffs also produced a deed by which they intended to shew that on opening the new account, the bankrupt assigned over to the defendants his book-debts and some policies of insurance. The defendants had collected debts by virtue of this instrument; but after the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nagle v Shea
...1 Bing. 73. Mason v. JohnstonENR 1 Esp. 89. Smithwick v. BearyUNK 3 Ir. Jur. (O. S.) 333; 1 Ir. C. L. R. 344. Vacher v. CocksENR 1 B. & Ad. 145, 147. Davison and Others v.GentENR 1 H. & N. 744. Shelly v. Wright Wils. 9. Dillon v.CrawleyENR 12 Mod. 500. Bulley v. BulletELR L. R. 9 Ch. App. 7......
-
Mounson v Redshaw
...held that he was not entitled to a new trial on account of misdirection, if either of the two latter points were rightly put to the jury. 1 B. & Ad. 145, Packer v. Cocks. But inasmuch as a nonsuit proceeds on the supposition that, the jury having agreed on their verdict, the plaintiff, bein......
-
Bills and Another, Assignees of W. Smith, against C. Smith
...(2 Camp. 166, 168, per Lord Ellenborough), Gibbins v. Phillipps (1 B. & C. 529, 534), Hunt v. Mortimer (10 B. & C. 44), Father v. Cocks (1 B. & Ad. 145), Morgan v. Brundrelt (5 B. & Ad. 289), Cook v. Rogers (7 Bing. 438), Atkinson v. Brindatt (2 Bing. N. C. 225), Gibson v. Boutts (3 Scott, ......
-
MAGEE v MARK. [Exchequer.]
...N. S., Chan., 125. Sutton v. Sadlier 3 Com. B., N. S., 87. Twigg v. PottsENRUNK 1 Cr., M. & R. 89; S. C., 3 Tyrw. 969. Vacher v. CocksENR 1 B. & Ad. 145. Clarke v. Arden 1 Jur., N. S., 710. KnightENR 2 M. & W. 894; see Lord Denman's judgement, p. 912. Thurtell v. BeaumountENR 1 Bing. 340. N......