Webb against Ward and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 May 1797 |
| Date | 24 May 1797 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 101 E.R. 983
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Post, 391. 2 Taunt. 61.
[296] webb against ward and another. Wednesday, May 24th, 1797. An uncertificated bankrupt, bringing an action of trover for goods, required to give security for the costs in case he should fail in his suit. [Post, 391. 2 Taunt. 61.] Best shewed cause against a rule for staying the proceedings in an action of trover, until the plaintiff who was an uncertificated bankrupt, should give security for the costs. He said this was a novel attempt, for which there was no precedent. It was not like the case of requiring such security from a foreigner who was not domiciled in this country, and who might therefore in ease he failed in his suit, immediately withdraw himself out of the reach of the process of the Court without any inconvenience. That if this attempt succeeded, it might as well be required that every (a) Dr. Stanger had before made an unsuccessful application to this Court. He bad obtained a rule calling on the president and fellows of the college to shew cause why a mandamus should not issue, " commanding them to admit him to examination for admission-into the class or order-of candidates for election into the society or fellowship of the said college." But as Dr. Stanger had presented himself to the comitia minora to be examined, which Court is constituted by one of the bye-laws with power only to examine candidates of a certain description within which Dr. Stanger did not come, this Court in Easter term, 1796, discharged the rule for mandamus ; saying that it did not appear that Dr. Stanger had any right to be examined by the comitia minora, but that if he had any title as being one of the homines .facultatis under the charter^ he should apply to the body at large.-The Court also intimated at that time a strong opinion that the bye-laws were reasonable and valid. 984 HASDWICK &'"BlitJCK. TT.K.297; poor man who brought an action should give the same security. That it did not follow that the property, if recovered, would belong to the plaintiffs assignees, as he might be a trustee for others beneficially interested. He also cited -Laroche v. Wakeman, Peake, 140. Garrow, contra, said that this case was peculiarly circumstanced and ought to furnish an exception to the general rule. For in the case of an uncertificated bankrupt it is notorious that the property if recovered, would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
George Frederick Mowlds, Attorney, v Robert Lynch Power
...1 Peake, N. P. 190. Taylor v. Buchanan 4 B.& C. 419. Kitchen v. BartschENR 7 East, 53. Snow v. TownsendENR 6 Taunt. 123. Webb v. WardENR 7 T. R. 296. Webb v. FoxENR 7 T. R. 391. Fowler v. DownENR 1 Bos. & P. 4. Laroche v. WakemanENR Peake, N. P. 190. Silk v. OsbornENR 1 Esp. 140. Evans v. B......
-
Coles v Barrow and Another, Assignees of Coles
...Chippindale v. Thomlinson, Cooke, Bankrupt Law, 3 ed. 518. Silk v. Osborne, 1 Esp. N. P. 140. Webb v. Fox, 7 T. R. 391. Webb v. Ward, 7 T. R. 296. In none of these cases do the Courts go the length of saying that the assignees are entitled to the fruits of the bankrupt's personal labour. In......
-
Watson v Fraser
...the Court stayed the proceedings until the assignee or some creditor of the plaintiff should give security for costs. So, in Wehl v. Ward (7 T. R. 296), which was an action brought by an uncertificated bankrupt, the plaintiff was required to give security for costs. He also cited Wesim^. Wi......
-
Fowler v Down
...this nature does not lie in the mouth of a stranger. Ea Roche Bart, and Others v, Wakeman and Another. (a) See Webb v. Ward and Another, 7 T. R. 296. lBOS.fcPTO.tt. FOWLER V. DOWN 771 eyrh Ch. J. What shall be done between the bankrupt and the assignees or creditors is one thing, and what b......