P (the plaintiff) had drawn bills requiring WH to pay P a sum of money three months after date. WH accepted them, but to gain more time for WH, GH (the defendant) guaranteed payment of the bills. P pressed for payment. WH did ultimately pay P but was declared bankrupt. WH’s assignees in bankruptcy brought an action against P and obtained recovery of the sum paid as a fraudulent preference. P then sued GH on the guarantee. One defence of GH was that P had been paid and the debt discharged. GH contended that the judgment in favour of the assignees was not admissible to prove non-discharge of the debt.
Held: P was entitled to prove in the circumstances payment by WH had not discharged the debt, but GH was not a party to the assignee action. The matter was ordered to be retried as to whether there had been ‘a real and genuine payment of the bills by the bankrupt.’
Citations:
(1843) 6 Man and G 151, [1843] EngR 760 (B)
Links:
Citing:
See Also – Cook And Others, Assignees Of Williams Hitchcock, A Bankrupt, v Pritchard 15-Jan-1843
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Lloyds Bank Plc v Independent Insurance Co Ltd CA 26-Nov-1998
The bank had made an electronic transfer of funds for a customer in satisfaction of that customer’s proper debt, but it was done under a mistake of fact as to the cleared status of funds received.
Held: The appeal was turned down. The bank was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insolvency, Contract
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.246226