Wright and Others, v Bell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 January 1818 |
| Date | 21 January 1818 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 146 E.R. 622
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
wright and others, v. bell. Wednesday, 21st January 1818.- The Court will entertain a suit for the specific performance of a. contract, for the purchase of a; debt. It js within the exception to the rule, that Courts of Equity will not compel specific performance of contracts for the sale of personal chattels -Doubts a?) to, and the proper mode of assignment, referred to the Deputy Remembrancer. This was a bill, tiled (Mich. Term 1811) by the assignees of a bankrupt, and the bankrupt, to compel the specific performance of a contract for the purchase of a debt, i KUCI, 328, WRIGHT V. BELL 623 clue to the bankrupt before his bankruptcy, and his then partner, from a merchant resident at Demerara, since deceased. The bill stated, that the plaintiff, Coinpton (the bankrupt,) aurl Pom-tales, (who resided abroad,) carried on business in partnership together, in London, as merchants ; that, (in 180(5, Compton (Pourtalos being out of the kingdom) was duly declared liankrupt, and the other plaintiffs were chosen his assignees ; that at a meeting of the jAirtnerahip creditors (L2th November 1808) it was resolved, that the outstanding debts should be sold, and amongst others the debt in question, due from the estate of Lespinasse, a West India merchant; that the defendant proposed to purchase it, and authorized his managing clerk, David Milne (who was the executor of Lespinasse) to treat for it; (that he (Milne) having ascertained the balance to be 5501. agreed, on the part of the [326] defendant, to give 5001. for it, as would appear by his letter (2d June 1809) to the plaintiff's on the subject, to (which they referred); that the plaintiffs then caused a deed of assignment to lie prepared, and submitted to the defendant's solicitors ; who, after making some slight alterations in it, returned it to the plaintiffs with a note, stating, that they considered that the plaintiffs had no right to transfer more of the debt than Compton's share, without I'ourtales joining in the assignment; whan plaintiff Compton having then obtained his certificate, agreed to indemnify the defendant, which his said solicitors accepted, and inserted a covenant to that effect in the draft, and returned it approved. The defendant, by his answer, admitted, or did not deny any of the circumstances stated, the main facts on which the bill was founded, except as to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- M.A. (Pakistan) v The Governor of Cloverhill Prison; M.A. (Pakistan) v The Minister for Justice and Equality
-
Kampff v Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform
...companies) and increased taxation and reduced social services (relevant to Garda Compensation claims which are paid out by the general exchequer): 'It should be logically situated within the legal scheme of awards made for other personal injuries... It is important in this context to recoll......
- ACC Loan Management Ltd v Rickard
- Harrington v Gulland Property Finance Ltd No.2