Whitmore v Empson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 January 1857 |
| Date | 17 January 1857 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 53 E.R. 123
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 26 L. J. Ch. 364; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 230; 5 W. R. 217.
[313] whitmore v. empson. Nov. 19, 20, 21, 1856; Jan. 17, 1857. [S. C. 26 L. J. Ch. 364; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 230 ; 5 W. R. 217.] Traders mortgaged a leasehold factory to A., and they afterwards mortgaged the machinery in it, separately, to B. Upon the bankruptcy of the traders, who had been allowed to retain possession of the machinery : Held, that the moveable machinery passed to the assignees, as being within the order and disposition of the bankrupt, but that the machinery fixed to the freehold did not, though mortgaged separately. This was a special case, and the question was, whether goods and chattels, consisting of trade fixtures and machinery, passed to the assignees of the bankrupts, as in the order and disposition of the bankrupts, as reputed owners thereof at the time of the bankruptcy, or belonged to Mr. Empson, to whom they had been mortgaged by the bankrupts. The bankrupts carried m business as die-sinkers and button manufacturers at Birmingham. They had two manufactories, one in Tower Street, and the other in Great Hampton Row, both of them held for the residue of two unexpirecl terms of ninety-nine years. The pre-[314]-mises in Tower Street were mortgaged to Mr. Fielding on the 1st of January 1852, to secure 800; and the premises in Great Hampton Row were, on the 6th of April 1852, mortgaged to a Mr. Smith for 1000. On the 15th June 1852 the bankrupts executed a bill of sale to Mr. Empson, in. consideration of 700, whereby they assigned to him all the machinery specified in the schedule to the bill of sale, with a proviso for making it void, on payment on the 15th June 1862, or at such earlier day as Mr. Empson should appoint, with power of sale. It was provided that, until default, the assignors were to be at liberty to hold and use these chattels. The property in the schedule was thus described:-" Engine-house, horizontal steam-engine and boiler complete, draw bench and tools complete. Shop, No. 6, new manufactory, twelve machines. Shop, No. 5, old manufactory, twelve stamps, four ditto, two medal presses, two cutting-out presses." All the machinery and effects mentioned in the schedule, except the twelve machines therein stated to bo in the new manufactory (meaning thereby the manufactory in Tower Street), were, at the date of the bill of sale, and thenceforth to the bankruptcy, in the manufactory in Great Hampton Row (called in the schedule the old manufactory), and wore used by the bankrupts in their business, and were affixed to the walls or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haley v Hammersley
...(6 El. & Bl. 876); Davis v. Jones (2 B. & Aid. 165); Elliott v. Bishop (10 Exch. 496, 522 ; 11 Exch. 113), and JVhUmare v. Empsm (23 Beav. 313). Mr. R. Palmer, in reply, referred to Pmton v. Mobart (4 Esp. 33 ; S. C. 2 East, 88), and Darby v. Hams (1 Q. B. 895). Judgment reserved. April 27.......
-
Gibson v Hammersmith and City Railway Company
...v. The Bedford and Cambridge Eailway Company, and Dadson v. The East Kent Railway Company (7 Jur. (N. S.) 941); Whitmore v. Empson (23 Beav. 313). Mr. Osborne and Mr. G. L. Eussell, for the Defendants, referred to :- [605] Dudley v. Warde (1 Amb. 112); Elwes v. Maw (3 East. 51); Trappes v. ......
-
The Metropolitan Counties, &, Society v Brown
...Fisher v. Dixon (12 Cl. & Fin. 312) ; Hare v. Hartm (5 Barn. & Ad. 715); Ex parte Barclay (5 De Gex, M. & G. 403); Whiinun-e v. Empaon (23 Beav. 313); Hutchinson v. Kay (23 Beav. 413) ; Ex parte Reynell (2 M. D. & De G. 443) ; Ex parte Bentlet/ (2 M. D. & De G. 591); Ex parte Cotton (1 M. D......