Wright v Hunter
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 February 1801 |
| Date | 24 February 1801 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 31 E.R. 861
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
weight v. hunter. Bolls. Feb. 5th, 1800; Feb. 2Uh, 1801. Money paid by one partner in a joint concern, being his liquidated share of the joint debts, to another partner, as agent for settling the debts, if not applied accordingly, may be proved as a debt upon the bankruptcy of the latter ; and therefore a payment by the other on the same account after the bankruptcy cannot be recovered from, the bankrupt; who had obtained his certificate : but in respect of another payment, also after the bankruptcy, in consequence of the failure of the bankrupt and other partners in paying their shares, a right to contribution arose ; and the whole was recovered in an action against the bankrupt, who had obtained his certificate ; the Defendant not having pleaded in abatement. Though contribution among partners is now enforced at law, the jurisdiction of Courts of Equity is not ousted ; and therefore though the bill was dismissed, the object having been obtained in an action directed, the^Court would not dismiss it with costs. Robert Hunter, Margaret Hunter and Henry Keowen Hunter, who were copartners in business in equal shares, were in 1791 concerned with the Plaintiff in a ship : the Plaintiff being entitled to six twenty-fourth shares ; and the Hunters to eighteen twenty-fourth shares. On the 8th of February 1793, the Plaintiff settled the account of the outfit of the ship and cargo with Robert Hunter for himself and his partners ; who were also pursers and husbands of the ship ; and the Plaintiff then paid to the Hunters the sum of 782, 19s. Id,.; which was his proportion of the charge. On the 9th of October 1793, the Hunters became bankrupts ; and at that time the sum of 1638, 8s. 8d. remained due on account of the outfit and cargo of the ship. After the bankruptcy it came out, that the Hunters had sold eleven twenty-fourth shares without the knowledge of the Plaintiff and by agreement subsequent to the bankruptcy the debt of 1638, 8s. 8d. was apportioned among the several owners ; and the Plaintiff paid his proportion; amounting to 409, 12s. '2d. The Hunters' share under that apportionment not being paid was subdivided among the other owners ; and the Plaintiff also paid 168, 13s. id., his proportion upon that division. 862 POCOCK V. REDDINGTON 5 VES. JOT. 798. Robert Hunter having obtained his certificate, the bill was filed against him for the purpose of being relieved against...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tan Gim Seng v Gurdev Singh Gill
... ... the defendant`s path, I accept.It was contended that, after the skid began, the defendant travelled slightly over a hundred feet whereas in Hunter v Wright [1938] 2 All ER 621 where the defendant was held not to blame, the car travelled only 13 to 20 feet and that therefore this showed that he ... ...
- Hammack, Administratrix, v White
- Scott v the London and St Katherine Docks Company