Webb against Brown
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 February 1794 |
| Date | 11 February 1794 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 101 E.R. 300
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
300 MEYSEY V. CARNELL 5T.E.S54: maintained, inasmuch as the deed having been executed in India could not be considered as an act of bankruptcy in England : and this was assented to by the counsel for the plaintiffs. Wigley for the plaintiffs confined himself on this day to the remaining points; and argued, 3dly, that the deeds, though not amounting to an act of bankruptcy, were fraudulent and void as against creditors; and that the money received by the defendant under them might be recovered by the assignees, and applied to the general mass of creditors under the commission. That the bankrupt clearly intended to prefer one set of creditors to another, and to distribute his effects unequally among them: that the last deed was executed just before he came to England ; and that it seemed as if he had come on purpose to clear himself by a commission of bankrupt. 4thly, that as by the very terms of the trust deed of the 1st January 1783 it was in the power of Campbell to revoke that, and the deed-poll of the 14th September 1782, in case of the non-execution thereof by any creditor [534] whose debt exceeded 10001. the assignment of the commissioners here was equivalent to an assignment by the bankrupt himself; which being an act inconsistent with the trust deeds, was in point of law a revocation of thrnn; and by virtue of which assignment all the personal property of the bankrupt, though situate abroad, passed to the assignees. And he cited Sill and Others, Assignees of Skirrow v. Warwick (a)1, &nd Hunter v. Potts (V), and the eases there cited. Lord Kenyon, Ch.J.-This case is too clear for further discussion. The facts are, that Campbell, before any act of bankruptcy in England, and during his residence in India, conveyed all his property in trust for all his creditors according to the several proportions agreed upon by all parties there. The transaction was perfectly fair at the time, and without any fraudulent intention; and Campbell acted honestly in executing the deeds. It is therefore too much to contend that a commission of bankrupt, which issued subsequently upon an act of bankruptcy committed after he came to England, can have a retrospect to or overhaul an act done fairly and honestly at the time by Campbell, who was not then in a situation in which the bankrupt laws of this country could have any operation either upon him or upen his property. Per Curiam...
To continue reading
Request your trial