Wright v Fairfield and Others, Assignees of Bracewell, a Bankrupt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 June 1831 |
| Date | 10 June 1831 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 109 E.R. 1314
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
For subsequent proceedings, see 2 B. & Ad. 959. Discussed, Beckham v. Drake, 1849, 2 H. L. C. 595. Referred to, Bailey v. Thurston, (1903) 1 K. B. 144.
[727] weight against fairfield and others, Assignees of Bracewell, a Bankrupt. Friday, June 10th, 1831. Assignees under 6 Gr. 4, c. 16, may maintain an action for unliquidated damages which have accrued before the bankruptcy by non-performance of a contract. [For subsequent proceedings, see 2 B. & Ad. 959. Discussed, Beckham v. Drake, 1849, 2 H. L. C. 595. Eeferred to, Bailey v. Thurston, [1903] 1 K. B. 144.] Error from the Court of Great Session at Chester. The declaration by the assignees, the defendants in error, stated, that the bankrupt had entered into a contract with persons acting on behalf of His Majesty, to furnish stone, and execute masonry, as in the said contract was s-pecified, for reward to him in that behalf, it being agreed, among other things, that on default made by the bankrupt in providing such stone, the other party might determine the contract: that the bankrupt, being desirous of obtaining stone for the above purpose, contracted with the defendant below (Wright) for a quantity of stone to be furnished him at a certain rate, and delivered within a specified time, upon certain terms; and that in consideration of the bankrupt's promise to perform the agreement on his part, the defendant Wright undertook, in like manner, to fulfil the same on his; that the bankrupt performed and was ready to perform the several matters by him promised, but the defendant below did not deliver the stone: by reason of which premises the bankrupt, before his bankruptcy, became and was unable to fulfil his contract, and lost the profits which would have resulted therefrom, to wit, 50001.; and the contract was lawfully determined by the other party pursuant to the agreement; and the bankrupt also lost the advantage of a large sum of money, to wit, &c. by him laid out in the hire of workmen, and was put to great expense, to wit, &c. in endeavouring to [728] procure other stone; and also, by reason of the premises, other money and materials by the bankrupt expended and provided for purposes relating to the contract, became lost and useless to him. There were other counts, containing similar statements, and money counts. Plea, the general issue. Verdict for the plaintiffs below. The errors assigned were, that the declaration was not sufficient in law to maintain the action, and that the judgment should have been for the plaintiffs in error. Tomlinson for the plaintiffs in error. This is an action by assignees to recover unliquidated damages for the non-performance of a contract with the bankrupt, the right to those damages having fully accrued (if it accrued at all) before the bankruptcy. Such an action does not lie...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v Spence
...be an injury to his personal estate, and a right of action for the wrong done to it would pass to his assignees. En W right v. Fairfield (2 B. & Ad. 727), it was held that assignees under a bankruptcy, since the 6 Geo. 4, c. 16, might maintain an [574J action for unliquidated damages. Littl......
-
Crauford v Cinnamond
...Exch. 313. Huffer v. AllenELR L. R. 2 Exch. 15. Hancock v. CaffynENR 8 Bing. 358. Porter v. VorleyENR 9 Bing. 93. Wright v. FairfieldENR 2 B. & Ad. 727. Spence v. RogersENR 11 M. & W. 191. Rogers v. Spence 12 cl. & F. 700. Knights v. QuarlesENR 4 Moore, 532. Howell v. Young 5 B. & Cr. 259. ......
-
Wetherell v Julius and Another
...to Smith v. Coffin (2 H. Blac. 444, 462), Ford and Sheldon's case (12 Co. Rep. 1), Myall v. Eolle (1 Atk. 165, 183), Wright v. Fairfield (2 B. & Ad. 727), Porter v. Farley (9 Bingh. 93, 2 M. & Scott, 141), and Marzetti v. Williams (1 B. & Ad. 415),-says (2 House of Lords Cases, 611): "It se......
-
Spence v Rogers
...house, could it be contended that the right of action in such case did not pass to the assignees 1 Clearly not. In Wright v. Fair/ield (2 B. & Ad. 727), it was held that assignees under a bankruptcy, since the stat. 6 Geo. 4, c. 16, might maintain an action for unliquidated damages which ac......