« ForrigeFortsett »
1806. Tabitha, his wife, and of C. D. and A. A. and hiu
Mhagheb wife, and of divers others, and lived and associated
lersiu with them on terms of mutual respect, confidence, and intimacy; and was by divers of those persons, to wit, the said Sir W. B., J.H.,C. D. and A.A. and others, received and entertained in their respective houses, and found and provided by them respectively with meat and drink, gratuitously, and without any price or sum of money whatever, by her paid or payable for the itame, and the great reduction of her necessary expences of living and maintaining herself, and the great increase of her riches, &c.; with a further averment that the defendant contriving to impoverish her and deprive her of all the benefit and advantage to her fortune and pecuniary circumstances, so by her received and receivable as aforesaid, Sic. and concluding per quod, her friends and neighbours and acquaintances, especially the several persons hereinbefore in that behalf named', have wholly refused to hold or permit, any intercourse or society with her, or to receive or admit her into their respective houses or company, or to find or provide for her meat or drink or any other benefits or advantages in any manner whatsoever, as they before that time had done, and otherwise would have continued to do, whereby the said plain/iff' had lost all those benefits and advantages, being to her, theretofore, of great value, to wit, of the annual value of 1001. and has been and is obliged to incur a much greater ex pence in her necessary living and supporting herself, to a large amount, to wit, to the annual amount of 1001. than she theretofore had done, and otherwise would have done, &c.
To this the defendant demurred specially, and the plaintiff joined in demurrer.
Curwood, in support of the demurrer, was to have argued, that the words not being actionable, except in respect of special damage, the damage here laid was not such specific and substantial damage as the court could take cognizance of; but must, from the statement of the declaration, be the loss of a mere gratuitous and eleemosynary invitation to dinner. Having stated this position, and cited Walker v. liaylcy* defend by these presents, of which goods and chattels I have put the said Thomas Chanlltr in full and peaceable possession, by delivering to him one knife at the sealing and delivering of these presents; in witness whereof, [ have hereunto put my hand and seal, the 25 th day of June, in the year of our Lord ] 803. Sealed and delivered by George Stelfox, being first duly stamped in the presence of John E/lison.—Gborgb Stelfox.' That the defendant on the said 24th day of June, 1803, and immediately after the execution of the bill of sale, took .possession, by virtue of the bill of sale, of the property thereby assigned, being the property mentioned in the declaration, and,without loss of time, caused the same to be sold, and the proceeds of the sale, after satisfying aa extent before that time duly issued, at the suit of the crown against the said George Stelfox, amounted t© 3001. Thatthesaid George Sttlfox at thetime of ex* eculing the said bill of sale knew that he was in insolvent circumstances, but he had not then committed any act of bankruptcy. That on the Gth day of July, 1803, a commission of bankrupt duly issued against the said George Stelfox, on the petition of the plaintiff", under which he was declared a bankrupt, the commissioners being of opinion, that the execution of the bill of sale to the defendant was an act of bankruptcy, and the plaintiff being duly chosen assignee, an assignment was duly executed to him of the personal estate and effects of the bankrupt. The question is, whether the plaintiff is intitled to recover? If yea, the verdict to stand; If not, a nonsuit to be entered.
Lord Ellen Borough, C. J. recommended, that he should withdraw his demurrer, and go to the jury, who if that were the case, would find for the defendant, but he seemed to intimate, that it might not be so clear upon the face of the record, merely, without such, finding.
Curwood said, that he advised the party to take issue instead of demurring; and upon consultation, with the Solicitor-general, who was with him,the defendant accordingly withdrew his demurrer.
Meaoiiejl versus Moons.
Newton against ChAntler.—January 28.
A trader in insolvent circumstances, and under arrest in execution,
at Hie suit of a creditor, assigns all his goods and effects to him, Jv'ujtm^
in payment of his debt, with a trust for payment of tlie surplus assignment.
to himself. Held, this is in contemplation of bankruptcy and g'^jj ^ fraudulent tcithin the slat. 1 Jac. I. c. 15, s. 2, notwithstanding tie compulsion of the arrest.
"JMIIS was an action of trover brought for the recovery of certain household goods and stock in trade, mentioned in the declaratian, and late the property of one George Stelfox, which action came on to be tried at the assizes for Chester, on the 13th day of September, 1805, before Robert Dallas, Esquire, and Francis Burton, Esquire, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff for 3001. damages,
18O6. and 40s. costs, subject to the opinion of this court on Tvi^7on the following case. That the said George Stelfox, versus being a malster and trader, became indebted to the BANTLEn. ft(jendanft a banker at Northwich, in the sum of 2001.
and to the plaintiff in the sum of 690I. for just and true debts, who for recovery thereof, respectively sued, out bailable process against the said George Stelfox, in the month of June, 1803. That the defendant's writ was first delivered to the sheiirT, who thereupon arrested the said George Stelfox on the 24th of June, 1S03. That the said George Stelfox, being in custody upon that arrest, in order to procure his release, agreed to give a bill of sale of all his goods and stock in trade to the defendant for securing the payment of his debt, who then declared that he should immediately put the same in force. Whereupon a bill of sale on the said 24th day of June, 1803, was made and executed to the defendant, by the said George Stelfox, a copy of which is as follows: 'To all people to whom these presents shall come, I, George Stelfox, of Rudheath lordship, of the county of Chester, malster, send greeting, whereas I am justly and truly indebted unto Thomas Chantler, of Northwich in the county of Chester, gentleman, in the sum of 3001.; now know ye, that I the said George Stelfox, for the better and more speedy raising and paying of the said sum of SOOl. so due and owing by me as aforesaid, and for and in consideration of the sum of 5s. of lawful British money to me in hand paid by the said Thomas Cliant/er, at or before the sealing and delivery of these presents, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, and for divers other good causes and valuable considerations me thereunto moving, I, the said George Stelfox have granted, bargained, and sold, and by these presents do fully, freely, and absolutely grant, bargain, and sell, unto the said Thomas Chantler, his ex
editors, administrators, and assigns, all ^and singular Hi) household goods and furniture, malt, stock in trade, aodeffects whatsoever, now remaining and being in, upon, orabout the messuage or dwelling house, maltkiln and premises, wherein 1 now inhabit, dwell, use, and occupy, situate, lying, and being in tfudheath lordship aforesaid, and all other my goods, chattels, and effects whatsoever, in whose hands, custody, or possession soever the same now are or may be found, and all uay estate, right, title, and interest,of, iu, and to the same, aud every part and parcel thereof; to have and to hold all and singular the Said goods, malt, chattels, and effects whatsoever, hereby before granted, bargained, and sold, or intended so to be, to the said Thomas Chautler, his executors, administrators, and assigns, as his and their own proper goods, chattels, and effects for ever, to the intent and purpose that he the said Thomas Chantler, his executors, and administrators, and assigns, shall aud may, by sale and disposal of all or any part of the said goods and premises, levy and raise the said sum of 3001. together with all reasonable costs and charges attending the sale and disposal of the said goods, and chattels, and effects, and render and restore the overplus of the said goods and money, (if any be) unto me the said George StelJox, my executors or administrators; And I, the said George Stelfox, do hereby for myself, my executors and administrators, and for every of them, covenant, promise, grant, and agree, to and with the said Thomas Chautler, his executors and administrators, that I, the said George Stelfox, my executors and administrators, all and singular the said goods, chattels, and effects, unto the said Thomas Chantlert his executors, administrators, and assigns, against me the said George Stelfox, my executors and administrators, and against all and every other person and persons whomsoever, shall and will warrant and for ever
RiCHARDSON,ybr the plaintiff, " The question is, ■whether this bill of sale of all the bankrupt's effects to si particular creditor, for the purpose of paying that particular creditor, and then reserving an ulterior interest, and trust for the bankrupt, is an act of bankruptcy. Ia Worscley v. De Mattos* and the other cases, it is clearly